Deus Irae

We spend a lot of time discussing individual players, especially starters. I thought it would be interesting to change it up a bit. Let's talk just projected backups and empty positions, understanding that free agency and UDFAs will likely change the equation.

1a) What positions are the weakest?
1b.) Are any positions so weak that they could endanger the team's potential Super Bowl run?

2a.) What positions are the strongest?
2b.) Are any positions so strong that they could be looked at as even, or an upgrade, coming in for the starter(s)?

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

Frick

weakest-olb-if they play ordinary we could still be fine.

strongest- cornerback-McCourty,Bodden,Dowling and Arrington,never thought I would ever say that.

If there was a backup better than a starter BB would fix that

cstjohn17

Here is my thoughts:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spre...J6bUE&hl=en_US

OLB and DE are weakest, RB is low in depth and experience.

supafly

I like the topic idea, Deus.

I think that OLB would be a position of weakness, as we'd be looking at TBC/Moore/Murrell/? (competition) as backups.

QB is another weakness as backups go, as we would see obvious and significant dropoff, although that isn't exactly the backups fault.

---------------------

Safety would be an apparent position of strength with Sanders/(likely one of Page/McGowan)/and one of Brown/Barrett.

I think that Sanders has shown that we can get by without too much drop off if/when forced into a starting role. So I think we could pretty much almost consider that the 'even' grade that you gave--depending on how Meriweather has been playing etc. Basically much like last yr's situation when Meriweather was benched. There's still some dropoff in speed, but Sanders sometimes can make up for it in other ways (smarts, positioning, etc).

I think ILB could be a position of backup strength also, with Guyton and Fletcher being able to at least handle the load for a game or two.

TE could be another one, depending on who you'd put as a TE3. If it's Crumpler, then that would be more than okay as a starter.

I would even consider DL on the fence, as a backup or two could certainly get us by for a couple/few games.

(Obviously assuming that we all agree that some of these are used as sub package players/role/specialty players)

patchick

Really good question...and surprisingly hard to look past the starters and focus on depth!

For instance, just about everybody so far has listed OLB as a depth weakness. But are Banta-Cain & Moore really so bad as backups? If Cunningham & Ninkovich emerge as strong starters, a couple of reasonable vets behind them is respectable. Or is the problem that you'd expect to line up 3 so-called OLBs in a lot of sets -- in which case you could argue that starting 4-3 DE is the problem area?

At DE, I think depth is very good. You have a ton to pick from in Warren, Stroud, Deaderick, Brace, Pryor and (health permitting) Wright. The trick will be establishing reliable starters out of the group.

The defensive backfield should be stacked, but I like ILB as the strongest depth position on defense. I feel good about all 4 -- could you have imagined saying that a few years back? Fletcher was impressive when you consider he was transitioning from small-school DL, he could have huge potential.

And that leaves NT as my biggest depth worry spot on defense.

On offense, I'm surprised that QB has only been mentioned as a depth problem area. It sure looks like a strength to me, with the #1 backup (who they trusted enough to go with just 2) returning, and a hotshot rookie behind him. TE, when you throw in rookie Smith, is as good and deep as you'll ever see. In fact, I'll pick TE as my best depth position of offense.

WR runs shallow, but the abundance of TEs keeps me from feeling too worried. Though if Taylor Price doesn't make the opening day 45, I'll start worrying more. RB looks OK barring early injuries, with plenty of young legs and versatile skillsets. OT, even without Light, has a reasonable top 4 including a pro-bowl caliber vet and a 1st-round rookie. But the interior OL...

Can it be that nobody else in this thread has mentioned the interior line? To me, C & OG leap out as the top depth concerns on the team.

BradyManny

I really think this Patriots team could wind up being stacked like the 04 Super Bowl team. They've drafted really well in the past few years and are reaping the benefits of that cheap labor. They can extend Mankins and still have money to sign a couple impact veteran free agents.

However, like any NFL team, they are not without flaw.

1a) OLB, WR
1b) Brady makes up for deficiencies at WR, and Belichick can scheme over OLB weaknesses fairly decently. OL is actually the real thing that I can see derailing a SB chance. As of now, it looks OK on paper, but there's a lot of uncertainty between Mankins' contract; Solder's learning curve; Kaczur's high-price. If Wright or Warren DON'T come back healthy, then DL is an issue. If they are healthy, then I like what we have at DL. The trenches, in the end, will decide our fate.

2a) QB, TE, CB
2b) The secondary looks most solid to me. With Bodden & McCourty, you have two potential Pro Bowl caliber CBs. Dowling is a very promising rookie. Arrington filled in nicely and is decent depth. And I think Butler made some real strides at the end of last season that can be built upon, and he can excel as a slot corner. We've had some missed 2nd rounders and seen them disappear in their 2nd or 3rd year (Wheatley..), but Butler I see actually doing the opposite.

TheSolderKing

Running Backs RUN- I realize they gotta read holes.... I ABSOLUTELY HATE the low experience argument. You either have it or you don't. Most players learn and get better. I much rather have this bunch of backs than Fragile Fred. I don't care for Morris I hope he is gone.

Lo-mo *****s on the "experience" statement. You Learn w/ time. Natural SKILL gets you way further imo and we have SKILLED backs

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

IllegalContact

depends on how you define depth....to me depth is the quality of the whole group, not just the quality of the starters.

QB - depth is good
RB - depth is good......rookies as depth is not an issue. both vereen and ridley have sound fundamentals
WR - depth is not good.......an unproven bench is a bigger issue here than with RB's......especially given the fact that everyone on the bench has had opportunities to get on the field.....tate, price, edelman are still not considered reliable, and branch and welker have shown tendencies of getting beat up
TE - depth is good
OL - depth is good, hole at starting RG, but as a unit, there are plenty of bodies.....need light back
DL - depth is OK......Twarren,wilfork,stroud,wright,brace,love,d eaderick
LB - depth is very good.....its just that the quality of the starting OLB's is suspect......
CB - depth is good
S - depth is good provided page comes back......would not be suprised to see dowling get his feet wet at this position

put it this way........if the pats are tired in the 4th quarter, then they need a new strength and conditioning guy.......they have the bodies at every position except WR

NEGoldenAge

You are over simplifying with the statement "you either have it or you don't". Having "vision" as a RB will probably make you productive in college, but the "risk vs. reward" decision making becomes a much larger factor in the NFL where the average defenders are bigger, more athletic and much more sound at tackling. BB has mentioned this trait specifically as a make or break quality for a college RB transitioning to the NFL. He stated that some RBs are quickly able to balance the risk vs reward, some take a while to adjust and some never quite get it.

supafly

Since I am the only one who mentioned QB, I will correctly assume that you were talking about me.

You are right, as a whole, QB is not 'bad'--yet I did try to explain my rationale. It isn't 'good' either. There WILL be significant dropoff, my statement is true. However, by stating this "it isn't exactly the backups fault," I assumed that you would realize what I meant. I was listing positions where we'd see significant dropoff, and maybe that was wrong of me to include QB.

If you are comfortable with Brian Hoyer, who basically has no game playing experience in the NFL, and a rookie who has not played a down then so be it.

And considering Deus question of "do you see any positions that could possibly derail our Super Bowl run?"---This is a position that I do...And I would think that everyone should too. That all said, the "depth" at QB is about as good as it's going to get, so we'll have to continue to all hold our breaths. Unless, like I said, you see Brian Hoyer leading us to the Super Bowl?