View Full Version : Maybe he is right . . .
02-19-2003, 12:02 PM
Hey, I was just re-reading a quote by Mr. Hayes' agent. He said,
“He's not like Troy Brown and [David] Patten and Deion Branch. Donald just isn't one of those quick little guys. He's big and physical, and that's not what their offense was geared to. There's no negative spin here. We leave with the utmost respect for Bill Belichick and Scott Pioli. We just decided we wanted to move on and they were gracious enough to grant our request.”
Now I understand that he is just covering up for an embarassing year. However, maybe there is some truth to that? Do we really need a big WR? We didn't to win the Superbowl. What do all you guys think?
02-19-2003, 01:01 PM
We didn't need a big WR because we didn't really need our offense. Defense and special teams were the main reason we won. I think this team really does need a big WR, but Hayes couldn't find his way to the field, nevermind catch a pass.
Originally posted by Ottawapatty
“He's not like Troy Brown and [David] Patten and Deion Branch. Donald just isn't one of those quick little guys. He's big and physical, and that's not what their offense was geared to. There's no negative spin here...." Now I understand that he is just covering up for an embarassing year. However, maybe there is some truth to that? Do we really need a big WR? We didn't to win the Superbowl. What do all you guys think?
No negative spin? Of course not. Just positive spin.
This is an interesting question Matt: What has to happen in order for a player to "fit" a system? The Pats pride themselves on finding players that are not greater than the sum of the parts and that fit the system. And yet they failed miserably with Hayes. Why?
I think they became infatuated with a number of perceived "needs" last year and from that point on they had blinders on. They wanted HEIGHT at receiver and a tight end that could block and catch and then they hammered away at those two goals without doing their homework. Getting too caught up in a concept like "tall receivers" is dangerous.
You can either go after the types of players that fit your system or you go after specific positions and try to bring in capabilities that you don't have. The second is a lot harder to do, especially when you forget the first part.
To say that Hayes wasn't successful because he is a tall, physical receiver (implying that he can catch the ball in traffic) and that is the REASON he failed to fit the system -- that's classic spin. That's like being asked to name your greatest fault in a job interview and saying you work too hard.
I am of the opinion that he just wasn't smart enough to learn the offense. He never really understood the offense and frequently ran the wrong routes. He did catch more balls in Carolina so we know he can catch.
Are big receivers not a match for New England's offense? I don't think so. A David Boston (6'-2) or Sharpie Owens (6'-3) could catch balls in any offense. The Pats should try to find receivers in the 6'-0 to 6'-2 range with a mix of speed an physicality. I think Hayes just wasn't that good or that adaptable or that physical. I don't remember him fighting anyone for any of his 12 receptions last year....
The only thing I wonder is if the Pats do enough with the system to accommodate the players. Going with the "fit" approach you overlook a lot of talent and you may not properly utilize the talent that you have.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.