Does BB like a jack of all trades more than a master of one a little too much??? - New England Patriots Forums

lillestroom · 08-26-2010, 06:47 AM

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

AzPatsFan · 08-26-2010, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillestroom

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

Are You serious? Questioning if Coach "Situational Substitution" likes to eschew specialists who can do one thing well, prefering only good all around players.

***KontradictioN*** · 08-26-2010, 06:59 AM

I'm wondering if I should even bother to take the time to go through a player by player analysis to show you just how bad the premise for this thread is, or just let someone else do it for me.

SEPatsFan · 08-26-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillestroom

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

Unless a player is #1 at his position, he almost has to be able to make contributions else where on the roster to make ANY NFL team, not just the Patriots. The two players that you are looking at would probably be low on the depth chart and would rarely see the field, if they were better they would be higher on the depth chart, so it is either carry dead weight, or get a contribution from them. And that is generally accomplished by participating in other ways, including STs.

SSDD

***Tunescribe*** · 08-26-2010, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillestroom

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

Yes, you're right. You should seriously consider faxing this crucially insightful brainstorm to the Patriots offices so BB and staff can re-think their approach to personnel.

All_Around_Brown · 08-26-2010, 08:15 AM

This thread is a perfect example of why I don't post here anymore. One person throws out some food for thought, quite innocuously, and a then as group of clowns throw snide, smart arse replies on it.

The poster has a point, and is making a cogent argument. The rest of you who diss him/her for that need to get a life. Pathetic...

***DarrylS*** · 08-26-2010, 08:18 AM

I like our method, and the versatility of our players...

This works for this system.. no need to make it different.

Yesterday Mazz and Felger were whining about how the Pats do not pay their players enough, and that this organization is basically in disarray...

BB also values ST's more than most other coaches, and we have really ramped this area up in the past couple of years.. a very good proven position coach, O'Brien.. locking up Gostowski, find a replacement for Paxton and "The Zoltan"... 5-10 yards either way can make a huge differenc.e

***Rob0729*** · 08-26-2010, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lillestroom

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

I think almost every team in the NFL approaches depth like the Pats do in that respect. The only way you can have a specialist (a guy who only rushes the passer for example and nothing else including special teams) is if the guy is the first guy off the bench. I can see Brandon Tate (used only on deep passes in certain formations like the Pats did with Donte Stallworth) and Cunningham (pass rush specialist) as those types of players at least as the season begins.

Unfortunately, if you are fourth, fifth, or sixth on the depth chart, you have to contribute on special teams. You cannot carry a guy on the roster who cannot contribute on special teams and might only see 1-3 plays a game if he is lucky barring injuries. That definitely isn't unique to the Patriots (all you had to do is watch last night's Hard Knocks to see that).

Fencer · 08-26-2010, 08:57 AM

I'm not convinced the production from STs has been all that great in recent years.

The Pats would never have won their first Super Bowl without dominating Pitt on STs in the AFC Championship game, and there was other ST goodness in BB's early years here. (Besides the obvious, where by "obvious" I mean FGs.) But once the rest of the league got the memo about not neglecting STs, just how much of an advantage have they been?

RayClay · 08-26-2010, 10:02 AM

Be specific. How can you answer a question about "players" when you don't know who they are?