- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,020
- Reaction score
- 939
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.January 2002, February 2002, February 2004, February 2005.why has acquiring a long snapper been so high on people's lists?
why has acquiring a long snapper been so high on people's lists? there is no question that having a good long snapper is great, but to consider that over some other needs is strange. you need an adequate long snapper, i know this, but there are so many out there that are better than adequate. i cant imagine paxton going anywhere anyways, but even if he does, that role can be filled in a minute at a cheap price. having a great long snapper is a luxury, NOT a necessity
Interesting way of doing it with the point system, thats a good way of doing it. I think your results look good to me, though I would point out (as BOR pointed out to me) that Meriweather has been playing the SS role a lot. Which would mean FS would be the need, but I imagine they'd be OK taking another guy like Meriweather who is good in coverage and in run support and can play either FS or SS.
I agree. Meriweather took over for Harrison and played SS, and will probably do so in the future.
It's been more of what I'd call a "rover" role that just happens to be used in place of SS. He's closer to the line, and lines up to blitz as needed, but he seems to be playing where he can read keys and routes and react to them. Perhaps it was a function of a transitioning secondary, but Brandon seems to have the 'playmaker' DNA and is being given more latitude to 'float' back there.I guess I'm still in denial about this. I know he has been playing SS, but I still picture the 5'-11" 198 guy at FS long term.
The importance of the position hasn't changed. It's simply that the position is flat empty -- the starter and backup are both UFAs. That makes it a gaping need, one which the team 100% must fill for 2009. IOW, ranking it high doesn't say anything about needing a "great" long snapper, just a long snapper!
On a similar note, when people say "If Mike Wright is healthy, is backup NT really a big need?" or "Isn't Heath Evans already our fullback?" they're looking at the 2008 roster, not 2009. You have to erase UFAs from your mental roster until/unless they resign.
Following DaBruinz' lead, I've attempted to tackle the question of "what holes do the Patriots most need to fill?" What's the state of the roster?
* Some of those positions had a second similar position that also scored in double digits: OT, TE, NT, and S. So those four position areas look to me like the primary, concentrated need areas.
* OG and DE are notable for having multiple gaps to plan for in 2010.
* CB & RB are notable for having multiple filled but "upgradable" slots for 2009.
Or not.
In a pinch. On a consistent basis, no; you lose their play at DE where they've excelled. Mike Wright wasn't a Wilfork-style NT, but he is able to play NT well using a different technique that still clogs up the middle - the advantage of having a Mike Wright is Seymour continues to dominate at DE and Warren continues to stuff runs on his side. Instead of lowering performance at 2 positions, you only lower it at one (while still backing up all three). Smith hasn't panned out at NT, but has developed nicely as a reserve DE and on STs.I agree about SS being the most bare position but why is a backup NT so important? Couldn't Seymour, Warren or Smith play NT in a pinch?
I have a thread over on the main board about the Pats Free Agents...
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...203077-pats-offseason-review-free-agents.html
A lot of people on this board just ASSUME that guys like Wright, Hochstein and Paxton will be back. I don't assume either way. I just look at the possibilities and then get called pessimistic .
Anyways, Its unfortunate that we still have 8 long, grueling weeks before free agency.
In a pinch. On a consistent basis, no; you lose their play at DE where they've excelled. Mike Wright wasn't a Wilfork-style NT, but he is able to play NT well using a different technique that still clogs up the middle - the advantage of having a Mike Wright is Seymour continues to dominate at DE and Warren continues to stuff runs on his side. Instead of lowering performance at 2 positions, you only lower it at one (while still backing up all three). Smith hasn't panned out at NT, but has developed nicely as a reserve DE and on STs.
Who said Casey Hampton? Let's limit the hyperbole to the posse chasing Dabruinz please.Was Wright really that good as a backup NT? I thought the only time he showed any potential at all is when he was lined up as a end and allowed to rush the passer. Smith played well at end which would allow Warren to slide to NT. Losing a probowl player from any of the units hurts the overall depth, if Wilfork went down of course the entire D line would take a hit.
I agree it is an important position but don't think it is the #2 need for the team.
Wright is a good player because he can play end, play of special teams and play NT in a pinch. Buts lets not classify him as Casey Hampton, he was ok at NT, average at best. Most of the time when Wilfork went out it was a passing situation or they went to 4 man line.
Following DaBruinz' lead, I've attempted to tackle the question of "what holes do the Patriots most need to fill?" What's the state of the roster?
To clarify: this is NOT the same as assessing draft and FA "priorities", which are shaped strongly by market forces. (E.g. the Pats have a gaping hole at fullback, but fullback won't be a high "priority" because the position is severely devalued in the marketplace.)
My goal was to come up with a transparent way of weighting position importance, current need and projected need. I whipped up a 20-point scale, comprised of 3 scores. It may look arcane but it's actually pretty simple and quick to tally:
2009GapPoints (0-9)
How far is the current Patriots roster from filling this position at a high level? E.g. Kicker scores a 0 because a Pro-Bowler is under contract; FB scores a 9 because the position is empty.
2010GapPoints (0-4)
Same as above but looking ahead to 2010.
PositionQualityValuePoints (0-7)
How much does the quality of the player at this position affect the team's chances of winning? (Note that you must assign the full 0-7 range; a 0 doesn't mean the position is worthless, just that it doesn't earn any position value points.)
I took a stab at scoring 38 individual positions, including starters, specialists, and primary subs. Here's the needs ranking I ended up with:
1. Strong Safety
2. Backup Nose Tackle
3. Punter
4. Fullback
5. Tight End A
6. Long Snapper
7. Swing Tackle
8. Rush OLB
9. 3rd ILB
Notes:
* Some of those positions had a second similar position that also scored in double digits: OT, TE, NT, and S. So those four position areas look to me like the primary, concentrated need areas.
* OG and DE are notable for having multiple gaps to plan for in 2010.
* CB & RB are notable for having multiple filled but "upgradable" slots for 2009.
Or not.
An interesting approach, I would like to see the full score for each position. On the surface I disagree with the rankings and am not sure what 'PositionQualityValuePoints' means? Is it a multiplier? Like QB is important so you times the score by 7?
I agree about SS being the most bare position but why is a backup NT so important? Couldn't Seymour, Warren or Smith play NT in a pinch? and who is the second ILB? Guyton?
I think the ratings should reflect emptiness as well as quality. At RB, OLB, ILB, CB the Pats have 1-2 good players and then a whole ton of JAGs these positions may be full from a body count but are hardly where we would want them to be.
Ugh, I don't see either as a fit for NE...check out patsox23's Maualuga thread.Of course, if Laurinitas or Mualaga fall to us, never mind the above.
3. meh- I like Hanson. Just keep him away from the woodchipper.
4. If we need a FB, we got Hochstein.
...
6. Sign Paxton. If it ain't broke.....
I don't disagree with any of this (well, except Hochstein at FB!) but you're looking at the 2008 roster, not the 2009. Those players aren't under contract, so the positions are clear needs until/unless they resign.
The 2006 draft class says :attention: Boy were we fooled by that scoundrel head coach that year!Now I start to see the value of your 'PositionQualityValuePoints' axis. Using pure numbers FB, Punter are holes on the roster but in reality these are very cheap positions to fill either via free agency or the draft.
The entire secondary has serious issues at the front end and at depth positions. Digging a little deeper I expect we will see a backup added to both lines and then the rest of the offseason spent upgrading the secondary.
The 2006 draft class says :attention: Boy were we fooled by that scoundrel head coach that year!
I didn't want to just throw stones... I put this spreadsheet together quickly, it is designed to highlight gaps in the roster. It doesn't account for future years but maybe next time I am bored I will add the 2010 analysis.
Using the color by numbers I see SS, FB, Punter, CB, ILB, and O Line as areas to address.