mgteich

OFFENSE (25)
I think that we need all of the following
QB 3
RB 5 (have we learned yet that RB is a punishing position?)
WR 5 (not 6)
TE 3
C 2
OG 3
OT 4
----------------------------------------
DEFENSE (22)
This is all that we need to play defense. For LB and DL, only 5 get almost all the reps.
DL 7
OLB 4 (at least one must be able to play inside)
ILB 3
CB 4 (the dime back, or even backup nickel is sometimes a safety)
S 4
------------------------------------------
SPECIALISTS (3)
Kicker, punter and deep snapper
-------------------------------------------
DEFENSIVE SPECIAL TEAMS OR DEVELOPMENTAL PLAYERS (3)
Recently, these positions have been filled by linebackers and safeties. However, they theoretically could be at any position.

Pats726

Just looking at this quick...I do think RB is more 4 than 5...I agree that it is a punishing position but if Morris was healthy, all would have been really great in that position. They really played a LOT of teh year with 3 as Eckel was more an ST player..

IcyPatriot

I'd like to see 4 TE's instead of 3 ... even if 2 of them play other positions. Preferable 2 who can catch so we can release one on blitzes when there is a hole left from the blitz. We were much stronger with Graham & Watson and we need to get back to that. Kyle Brady was too old ... youth with strength is good enough.

Fencer

Obviously, a lot of guys are hybrids. E.g., I say there are two backup interior OL and leave it at that. But basically you're spot-on on offense. (With Cassell coming to the end of his undistinguished tenure, this probably won't be a year to go with 2 QB.) And of course you're right on K/P/LS.

DL -- yep. 7 is the way to start the season, with at least 2 being no-apologies NT. (Since almost every DE starts out at NT, that could be enough.)

S and CB -- yep. 4 each are needed to start the season.

That leaves 10 slots for LB, ST-focused, and general developmental. I think the position where your regular-vs.-ST distinction works least well is LB. Chatham, TBC, Woods, Alexander, Izzo, Don Davis -- all have been ST LBs who got regular LB reps even so.

BradyFTW!

I think Belichick prefers to carry 4 TEs. Other than that, your list looks good to me. Belichick has commented a couple of times in the past thta, in hindsight, he has felt that he carried too few DL (he blames that for the Panthers' near-comeback in the 2003 SB), so I think that 7 is just about right there.

__________________

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

PatsFanInVa

Hate to pile on, but you can use 3 TEs in 1 set. 4 at that position.

PFnV

Fencer

Didn't he go into the Jacksonville game with only 4 DL active? That shocked me, in light of the quote you're talking about.

As for the TEs -- Vrabel is the 4th. If 2 TEs got injured, he'd add a JAG.

We know BB would like more depth at almost all the positions. The numbers mgteich put up have proven inadequate at least one year each at almost every position, P and LS not excepted. But 53 is the limit, so there are tradeoffs to make.

mgteich

I'd rather have a veteran 5th RB than have a 4th TE, since we never seem to have depth at RB when there is an injury. I think that having a veteran RB already on the squad would have been much more useful than bring in Eckel off the streets for a rep or two. However, I do not have strong feelings against a 4th TE instead.

My question is simple one. When have ever had 4 TE's? We carry three. Vrabel is #4. If there is an injury and we need another blocking TE, Hochstein has played the position, as has O'Callaghan.

stinkypete

I say 5 RB is a necessity. In our last 2 playoff losses, Faulk was hurt late in the 2nd quarter. The offense sputters without Faulk on 3rd down. We need a backup RB who can pick up the blitz and be a player in the short passing game.

Prediction: we sign Mewelde Moore or draft Mike Hart of Michigan.