Patriots WRs

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
94,606
Oregon
Maybe a week off will help him (and obviously heal him). I'd like to see Baker get some snaps.
Doesn't seem likely

Reiss:
3. Baker on bench: Before the Patriots can trust rookie receiver Javon Baker on the field, the fourth-round pick from Central Florida needs to earn more trust off it. Baker had a "hiccup" in London last week when it came to following at least one part of the team's itinerary, according to a team source, and was inactive for a third straight game.
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,212
The Granite State
Ghastly performance from this unit today, save for Boutte’s late downfield catch and Thornton’s nifty catch and run down near the goal line. Five (!) clean drops, some on big downfield plays or chain movers (Thornton, Boutte, Bourne). Pop was in witness protection for most of the game, which was baffling.

The Pats will need to keep feeding these guys, but they all just need to shut up and focus.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
37,296
Thornton's drop came because he got bumped before the catch, he just can't handle any kind of physicality from defenders.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
28,461
Newton
Thornton's drop came because he got bumped before the catch, he just can't handle any kind of physicality from defenders.
Agreed. Arguably DPI, actually. But if you’re the Pats you want to see him make a play through adversity.

I will say: while the catch wasn’t terribly difficult, Thornton’s play on the final drive skittering down the sideline after the catch was good and super timely given the situation.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
2,032
Melbourne, Australia
Glad our WRs have short memories. Most (well except for Bourne) found a way to contribute later. Boutte with the delicious catch on the great throw by Jacoby, then with the almost TD catch at the very end, Thornton with the timely catch and evading the tackle for the first down on the FG drive before that.

Several uncalled DPIs though. The one involving Hooper in the end zone was... bad. Oliver was holding his right arm clear as day.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
13,672
São Paulo - Brazil
Thornton is absolutely useless, at least Boutte makes some plays, but on the whole this WR corps might be the worst position group in the NFL. Had they been average yesterday the Pats put 35 on the Jets.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
27,929
Unreal America
Even measured, front office mouthpiece Bob Sochi ripped into the WRs yesterday. After the 4th or 5th drop he commented that Pats WRs 'hold their phones but drop the ball', or something to that effect. No surprise to hear Zo trashing players, but it was jarring coming from Sochi.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
55,281
Boutte--tough drops, but torched Sauce late.
Thornton--bad drop, nice catch and run on GW drive.
Bourne--no redemption, but as a vet with a bit of a track record, I expect he will bounce back.

 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
3,238
Boutte--tough drops, but torched Sauce late.
Thornton--bad drop, nice catch and run on GW drive.
Bourne--no redemption, but as a vet with a bit of a track record, I expect he will bounce back.

Call up Edelman, tell him to rip into these guys. Make the tough plays (even with bad QB play), then you get to squawk about the other stuff. Every one of these guys right now is a JAG.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Glad our WRs have short memories. Most (well except for Bourne) found a way to contribute later. Boutte with the delicious catch on the great throw by Jacoby, then with the almost TD catch at the very end, Thornton with the timely catch and evading the tackle for the first down on the FG drive before that.

Several uncalled DPIs though. The one involving Hooper in the end zone was... bad. Oliver was holding his right arm clear as day.
Two thoughts related to this post:
  • I thought the DPI calls were oddly asymmetric. Some were really ticky-tacky; others ignored.
  • OTOH, I was really impressed on the final two play calls (the Boutte spot and the Rham TD). Both were very close and I think they got both right in real time.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
28,461
Newton
Boutte--tough drops, but torched Sauce late.
Thornton--bad drop, nice catch and run on GW drive.
Bourne--no redemption, but as a vet with a bit of a track record, I expect he will bounce back.

Yeah, Bourne looks rusty to me, not washed.

Also, the Polk healthy scratch was probably a good move -- it's not like anyone else stepped up in his absence. But it clearly didn't hurt them and sends a message that there will be consequences for making repeated mistakes.
Had they been average yesterday the Pats put 35 on the Jets.
Truth. Relatedly, I think one of the slightly underrated storylines is that the pass protection was pretty good for most of yesterday. Certainly good enough for the QBs to put a bunch of passes right in the receivers' breadbaskets (only for them to bounce off their hands and ground).

I would also say: I know this is the WRs thread but I suspect the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone here. A successful passing game requires three things: 1) Decent protection, 2) Accurate, timely throws and 3) Open receivers who can catch the ball. It is rare that they have been able to do all three things consistently (it wasn't lost on me that Brissett looked a lot better yesterday at moving around in the pocket and getting the ball out than in any of his starts). So, while the group has possibly the lowest ceiling in the NFL, they are probably better than what we have seen -- and you would both hope and probably expect that they will drop fewer balls as #s 1 and 2 stabilize.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
5,191
Worcester
Yeah, Bourne looks rusty to me, not washed.

Also, the Polk healthy scratch was probably a good move -- it's not like anyone else stepped up in his absence. But it clearly didn't hurt them and sends a message that there will be consequences for making repeated mistakes.
He didn't practice last week- concussion protocol.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
3,238
Two thoughts related to this post:
  • I thought the DPI calls were oddly asymmetric. Some were really ticky-tacky; others ignored.
  • OTOH, I was really impressed on the final two play calls (the Boutte spot and the Rham TD). Both were very close and I think they got both right in real time.
I think you're right on the Boutte spot although they did not show a great angle down the goal line. The angle was off and there was no shot from behind him that I saw. The fact that this continues in this league is really insane. The tech absolutely exists to get it 100% right with minimal delay.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think you're right on the Boutte spot although they did not show a great angle down the goal line. The angle was off and there was no shot from behind him that I saw. The fact that this continues in this league is really insane. The tech absolutely exists to get it 100% right with minimal delay.
My recollection is that there was a shot right down the goal-line but it was blocked by a Jet. But it seemed clear to me by inference of his body length that the ball was about 6" short when he was down.
 

Zincman

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
485
New London
What bothered me most about the rash of drops was that, for the most part, they were "technical" drops, that is, receivers using poor technique in the moment of the catch. Notable to me is the poor use of hands in those attempts with receivers trying to cradle balls that really need to be hand caught. Coaching or scouting? IDK...but it is rather glaring.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
37,296
What bothered me most about the rash of drops was that, for the most part, they were "technical" drops, that is, receivers using poor technique in the moment of the catch. Notable to me is the poor use of hands in those attempts with receivers trying to cradle balls that really need to be hand caught. Coaching or scouting? IDK...but it is rather glaring.
Honestly other than the Thornton one they were all guys who didn't want to take a hit... now some of that was QBs leading them into danger, but still need to make the catch and get down.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
53,161
I don't understand many current advanced football stats as well as other folks, but are there small sample size effects with where Polk is on that graph?
Of course there are and if you were scouting him for another team (that concept probably thrills people here now) you would note both the SSS as well as the fact that Brissett was the QB for five of his games.

In short, you probably want to see more before totally writing Polk off but I get many fans have already made their final judgements on players, coaching etc.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,549
I think a lot of this stuff can be deceiving, both good and bad, but I think in this case the chart backs up what our eyes have been telling us. Polk has been bad.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
55,281
I think a lot of this stuff can be deceiving, both good and bad, but I think in this case the chart backs up what our eyes have been telling us. Polk has been bad.
Sure, no one is disputing that. But it's worth noting that not only is it not a lot of games, most of them were with Brissett taking snaps.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,864
I don't understand many current advanced football stats as well as other folks, but are there small sample size effects with where Polk is on that graph?
I don't have an opinion on the relevance of the data, but - aside from the obvious QB play affecting the numbers - those stats aren't going to account for the type of route being run, nor the concept it's being run against. Certain routes - comebacks, posts, slants - tend to create greater separation. And man/zone coverage - as well as press, which without watching film I'd have to assume the early season Patriots saw alot of - are also going to affect seperation/RAC.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,742
Overland Park, KS
Besides his first game, Rome Adunzo has been pretty pedestrian for the Bears, perhaps the Washington receivers benefitted from their QB or their shitty conference last year.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,549
Sure, no one is disputing that. But it's worth noting that not only is it not a lot of games, most of them were with Brissett taking snaps.
Ok totally fair, but who has been throwing to Douglas and Boutte? They at least show up positive on one axis of the graphs. The poster had to make a second graph just to account for Polk. Seems bad.

Edit: Polk might figure it out. Maybe Maye full time unlocks him. We all want that. But given how we've watched poor WR draft picks for a few decades now, we kinda get better at smelling the busts early.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,771
around the way
Love seeing my guy Troy Franklin and also Luke McCaffrey way out right getting mad separation...since both of those guys were available where we were picking in the 3rd, and we still could have had one of the OTs in the second.

edit: to be fair, Franklin seems to have the dropsies too. But it was obvious that he was going to get open.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
55,281
Ok totally fair, but who has been throwing to Douglas and Boutte?
Well, they both started seeing more targets once Maye took over.

Boutte with Brissett starting: 3 games, 5 catches for 47 yards, 5 targets, or 1.7/game
Boutte after Maye took over: 3 games, 11 catches for 138 yards, 11 targets, or 3.7/game (yes, most of the 3rd game was with Brissett, but I think it's fair to say playing with Maye unlocked him a bit, and now he's earned some trust.)

Douglas with Brissett starting: 5 games, 18 catches for 153 yards, 24 targets, or 4.8/game
Douglas with Maye starting: 3 games, 10 catches for 118 yards, 15 targets, or 5.0/game

Polk has only had 7 targets from Maye so far, and he's done pretty bad with them. He had 3.8 targets/game with Brissett, and 3.5 with Maye.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,549
All good data. And Polk missed a game. But technically Maye missed most of that too. But couldn't Polk not be getting targets from Maye because, as the graph shows, he gets no separation? Basically, Douglas is getting separation and doing ok with it. Boutte has less separation but is getting more YAC after catching contested balls. It seems to match what our eyes have shown us no?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
55,281
All good data. And Polk missed a game. But technically Maye missed most of that too. But couldn't Polk not be getting targets from Maye because, as the graph shows, he gets no separation? Basically, Douglas is getting separation and doing ok with it. Boutte has less separation but is getting more YAC after catching contested balls. It seems to match what our eyes have shown us no?
Absolutely--I just think 2 games with Maye isn't really enough time yet to say it's not going to work. I'm definitely not disputing that he's been bad.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,287
Philly
I don't have an opinion on the relevance of the data, but - aside from the obvious QB play affecting the numbers - those stats aren't going to account for the type of route being run, nor the concept it's being run against. Certain routes - comebacks, posts, slants - tend to create greater separation. And man/zone coverage - as well as press, which without watching film I'd have to assume the early season Patriots saw alot of - are also going to affect seperation/RAC.
ASS bakes that in. Raw separation score also takes that into consideration.
I think the scores and the data is mostly junk and I don’t pay a lot of attention to it. But hey YMMV. Not you personally. Universal you.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
37,791
306, row 14
The chart is catchpoint + YAC and separation. The "lol I have to zoom out to find him" is because he has no YAC.

Are the grades only being calculated on his catches? The chart says a minimum of 100 routes run but is it calculating these grades based off every route or every catch? Has to be on catches because YAC is included, no? In which case he's obviously going to be bad because he hasn't caught the ball and the crazy small sample size, 10 catches. He has no YAC but he's also only had 9 YAC opportunities (caught 1 in the end zone so can't YAC). It's also hard to take YAC numbers for face value because there are variables outside of the WR's control. What type of route is being run, the ball placement from the QB, etc.

I know this isn't really deep analysis but Polk is 3rd on the team in targets behind Henry and Douglas. Generally the QB, be it Brissett or Maye, isn't going to just throw to covered guys so on the surface it feels like Polk is getting open to some degree? Obviously if the drops continue they'll stop looking his way, rightfully so.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,864
ASS bakes that in. Raw separation score also takes that into consideration.

I think the scores and the data is mostly junk and I don’t pay a lot of attention to it. But hey YMMV. Not you personally. Universal you.
While it's baked into the overall raw score, relative to other routes, there are still routes on the tree that stand out over others for creating seperation, which I believe will boost a person's raw score:

90920

As for the coverage being accounted for...are you sure? The closest I could find for the definition was the below:

PFF grading (+2 to -1 scale) is also used to determine the quality of separation generated by players. Route runners receive a positive grade for creating separation against a defender in primary coverage within the proper timing of the route being run. The magnitude of the positive grade is dependent on route depth, down and distance, amount of separation created, and YAC (yards after the catch) potential. Route runners receive a neutral (zero) grade for doing what is expected of them on the play with separation being attributed to the play design or coverage scheme (ex. screens, decoy routes, defender lets up in coverage, busts, etc.). Lastly, route runners receive a negative grade for being unable to create separation or getting unwillingly taken out of their routes. The magnitude of the negative grade is dependent on route depth, number of defenders in primary coverage, and unforced errors (falling down, running the wrong route, etc.).
My understanding from the above is that scheme is only accounted for in off situations - prevent D, busted coverage, etc - and then the receiver gets a neutral grade because they were expected to be open.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
37,296
PFF is (as with many of their metrics) not really transparent about how they grade separation, they throw out some mumbo-jumbo about "trying to stop" which involves them guessing both what the offense and the defense are trying to do (which is stupid, they don't know the playcall).

To the extent any of these metrics are good I think ASS is clearer on what it wants to do, and what it is measuring appears to be the best in terms of telling you what WRs actually get open on their routes.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,708
Besides his first game, Rome Adunzo has been pretty pedestrian for the Bears, perhaps the Washington receivers benefitted from their QB or their shitty conference last year.
To be fair to Odunze, unlike Polk, he is competing for targets with DJ Moore, Keenan Allen and Cole Kmet, with Swift out of the backfield. And Odunze is on pace for roughly 50/700/3.

Polk just needs to beat out lumbering tight ends like Hunter Henry, and receivers like Pop, Boutte, Underwood, etc. for his opportunities. Polk is on pace for 23/175/2
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
37,296
To be fair to Odunze, unlike Polk, he is competing for targets with DJ Moore, Keenan Allen and Cole Kmet, with Swift out of the backfield. And Odunze is on pace for roughly 50/700/3.

Polk just needs to beat out lumbering tight ends like Hunter Henry, and receivers like Pop, Boutte, Underwood, etc. for his opportunities. Polk is on pace for 23/175/2
So this comes up a lot but..... being a tertiary option (he got most of his yards when other guys were out) in a decent offense is actually much more conducive to production than being the #1 or #2 option in a terrible offense, because you get to beat up on 3rd/4th CBs, you get mismatches all over the place and never get doubles or brackets.

Competing for targets isn't really a thing if you are getting snaps, because you actually get better opportunities if you are on the field with other threats.

Polk has been bad, but he's also spent most of the year getting the #1 WR treatment from opposing defenses, with either their best CB or doubles. Odunze has been seeing almost exclusively #3 option defenses (also he's just a more physically gifted player which is why he went early 1st not early 2nd).
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,708
So this comes up a lot but..... being a tertiary option (he got most of his yards when other guys were out) in a decent offense is actually much more conducive to production than being the #1 or #2 option in a terrible offense, because you get to beat up on 3rd/4th CBs, you get mismatches all over the place and never get doubles or brackets.

Competing for targets isn't really a thing if you are getting snaps, because you actually get better opportunities if you are on the field with other threats.

Polk has been bad, but he's also spent most of the year getting the #1 WR treatment from opposing defenses, with either their best CB or doubles. Odunze has been seeing almost exclusively #3 option defenses (also he's just a more physically gifted player which is why he went early 1st not early 2nd).
How do those bolded sentences not contradict each other?

And I wasn't responding to someone making an argument that as to why he's getting more than Polk. I was pushing back on why Odunze's numbers appear "pedestrian."

Polk has sucked. Playing the way he has would have resulted in him sucking on any team in the NFL.

As for this "Competing for targets isn't really a thing if you are getting snaps, because you actually get better opportunities if you are on the field with other threats," it may be true for the #2 option, I don't buy for a second it's true for the #3 or #4 option on a team. There are simply only so many targets to go around. Stefon Diggs swallowed up 160 targets last year in Buffalo and they had Gabe Davis. Khalil Shakir, as a result, only saw 45 targets all season (even though he caught 39 of them). Diggs is gone, and so is Davis and before they got Cooper, Shakir was basically their #1, and his targets through 7 games is sitting at 38 (with 36 catches). Rashee Rice goes down in week 4 this season, and JuJu jumps up to the #2 option, a he goes for 7-130 on 8 targets the following week as their #2 behind Kelce. Was JuJu getting more opportunities because he had lesser coverage on him when Rice was in there, or did he have more opportunities because Rice got hurt? When Gronk got hurt in 2016, it was Edelman and Malcolm Mitchell whose production spiked.

Like I said, if you want to argue that Tee Higgins looks better than he is, because he's a #2 opposite Chase, I'm all aboard that train (which is why when the Pats go out and get another team's #3 that they don't want, and people think those guys are #2's in sheep's clothing, it makes me insane), but when you start talking about 3rd or 4th options in an offense, you aren't going to put up 75-1,250-8, because there simply isn't the opportunities to do so barring injuries in front of you, no matter who's on the other side of the field.
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I was pushing back on why Odunze's numbers appear "pedestrian."....

....As for this "Competing for targets isn't really a thing if you are getting snaps, because you actually get better opportunities if you are on the field with other threats," it may be true for the #2 option, I don't buy for a second it's true for the #3 or #4 option on a team...

...if you want to argue that Tee Higgins looks better than he is, because he's a #2 opposite Chase, I'm all aboard that train... but when you start talking about 3rd or 4th options in an offense, you aren't going to put up 75-1,250-8, because there simply isn't the opportunities to do so... no matter who's on the other side of the field.

I read @Cellar-Door's point as being something like "Given a receiver of fixed ability level (say, x), they will have more opportunities to get open as a #3 or #4 b/c worse defenders = easier to get open."

I read your response as saying two things
  • "Given a receiver of poor ability (say 0.5x) promoting them from #3 or #4 to #1 or #2 will not make them better" ; and
  • "Because the league-wide correlation is that QBs overwhelming pass to their #1s and #2s, #3s and #4s will never get significant opportunities, not matter how open they are."
The first of these is, OK, true enough. But I'm not sure it's related to what CD was saying

The second feels like it's potentially true if applied to teams with really great #1 and #2. But if on another team the #1 was only rarely open and the #3 was open all the time, I can imagine that team and QB making decisions that become, if you will, the exception that proves the rule

Sort of like how last weekend when Christian Gonzalez was defending Davante Adams (4 receptions in 7 targets, 57%) Aaron Rogers responded in part by (to your point) throwing to #2 Garret Wilson (5 of 8, 62.5%)... and also to his #3 through #6 targets (8 of 10, 80%).

One game sample size and all that, but I read CD's point as a version of "Hey, a fair amount of the time 80% is a bigger number than 57%" And your point as "Hey Garret Wilson's 8 targets were more than Tyler Conklin's 3 targets"

And, I mean, yes?
 
Last edited:

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
53,161
As a general point about any Patriot WRs, the next big game for just about any one of them will be the first and depending on the stats it could vault them from horrific to something like league average-ish pretty quickly. Its just so hard to evaluate what this group is with bottom third QB play for the bulk of their games.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,708
I read @Cellar-Door's point as being something like "Given a receiver of fixed ability level (say, x), they will have more opportunities to get open as a #3 or #4 b/c worse defenders = easier to get open."

I read your response as saying two things
  • "Given a receiver of poor ability (say 0.5x) promoting them from #3 or #4 to #1 or #2 will not make them better" ; and
  • "Because the league-wide correlation is that QBs overwhelming pass to their #1s and #2s, #3s and #4s will never get significant opportunities, not matter how open they are."
The first of these is, OK, true enough. But I'm not sure it's related to what CD was saying

The second feels like it's potentially true if applied to teams with really great #1 and #2. But if on another team the #1 was only rarely open and the #3 was open all the time, I can imagine that team and QB making decisions that become, if you will, the exception that proves the rule

Sort of like how last weekend when Christian Gonzalez was defending Davante Adams (4 receptions in 7 targets, 57%) Aaron Rogers responded in part by (to your point) throwing to #2 Garret Wilson (5 of 8, 62.5%)... and also to his #3 through #6 targets (8 of 10, 80%).

One game sample size and all that, but I read CD's point as a version of "Hey, a fair amount of the time 80% is a bigger number than 57%" And your point as "Hey Garret Wilson's 8 targets were more than Tyler Conklin's 3 targets"

And, I mean, yes?
No, he was arguing that the #3 and #4 receivers face shittier coverage, because of the gravity caused by the the top weapons. My response to that is basically "no shit" abd is basically the same argument I've been making here for 5 years.

This was in a discussion about Rome Odunzes "pedestrian numbers," to which i had said he's fighting for targets.

But then, at the same time, he argued Odunze made git most of numbers when other guys were out, which would imply that Odunze has not had a problem beating better coverage as a higher option.

It was an argument for the sake of arguing. He simply could have said "yes, Odunzes producing very well for a #4 and when given the chance, he produced well as the #2 or #3 option," because that's the end result of his two contradictory thoughts.

And Polk still sucks.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,708
As a general point about any Patriot WRs, the next big game for just about any one of them will be the first and depending on the stats it could vault them from horrific to something like league average-ish pretty quickly. Its just so hard to evaluate what this group is with bottom third QB play for the bulk of their games.
Or alternatively, maybe it's the worst receiving group in the NFL outside maybe Carolina, that's making our quarterbacks look worse. Shit, a league average QB at worst, like Jacoby Brissett, would have had these guys in the playoffs two years ago and would have been almost .500 last year. Or so I was told.

I'm confident Drake Maye will continue to put throws on these receivers. I'm not confident the receivers will be in the right place, will catch it when it gets there or will do anything with it if they do miraculously catch them. What I want to see is a receiver make an actual tough catch, maybe even one in traffic, where we aren't blaming the QB because the throw was a millisecond late or 6 inches from perfect, like we see in every NFL game, every single week. Shit, im watching OSU/PSU right now and these receivers have made more plays and " tough" catches than the Pats receivers have made all year.
 

Eric Fernsten's Disco Mustache

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
He simply could have said "yes, Odunzes producing very well for a #4 and when given the chance, he produced well as the #2 or #3 option"

I hear that is it very frustrating for you when other people don't post what you want them to


And Polk still sucks

I don't think there's anyone here suggesting Polk has been playing well