Fullback, H-back, #5 RB, #4 TE

[mgteich]

Which is more valuable?

It seems that Green-Ellis is camp insurance against injury to one of the other four, a valuable role.

As Box indicated, almost all the TE's have played h-back. Listorti was a prospect at fullback.

Hochstein is our goal-line fullback.

So, what is the best use of this roster spot? Or should the position be used for a WR/STer?

 

[JSn]

Or should the position be used for a WR/STer?

Bingo. That's what I would do, though if three active TE's becomes a regular thing it might not be a roster spot that amounts to much anyway.

 

[mgteich]

If I were choosing the best player 53, the one who would likely contribute most, I suspect that I would choose one of Aiken/Ventrone/Slater over Green-Ellis or a 4th TE. I presume that one of the three will already have a roster spot in any case.

 

[JSn]

If I were choosing the best player 53, the one who would likely contribute most, I suspect that I would choose one of Aiken/Ventrone/Slater over Green-Ellis or a 4th TE. I presume that one of the three will already have a roster spot in any case.

Yeah, I'm just thinking of actual game-day actives. And it would SUCK to try and figure out which of those three is most valuable. I have a hunch if it's just an ST worry it MIGHT be Bubba.

 

[Bring Back Antowain!]

Sammy Morris, Laurence Maroney, and Fred Taylor have all had to deal with injuries. Kevin Faulk is like 33 and has his contract expiring after the season.

To me, that makes it necessary to keep BenJarvus Green-Ellis. Because if we cut him, he will be picked up by another team, there would be no speed dial.

 

[mgteich]

To be clear, if one of the four RB's were injured, I still wouldn't have Green-Ellis active. It is only if two RB's are injured that Green-Ellis has any value, and then only if there is a game injury.

Sammy Morris, Laurence Maroney, and Fred Taylor have all had to deal with injuries. Kevin Faulk is like 33 and has his contract expiring after the season.

To me, that makes it necessary to keep BenJarvus Green-Ellis. Because if we cut him, he will be picked up by another team, there would be no speed dial.

 

[Jimke]

Which is more valuable?

It seems that Green-Ellis is camp insurance against injury to one of the other four, a valuable role.

As Box indicated, almost all the TE's have played h-back. Listorti was a prospect at fullback.

Hochstein is our goal-line fullback.

So, what is the best use of this roster spot? Or should the position be used for a WR/STer?

Green-Ellis would also be regular season insurance against injury.
Maroney and Morris have been prone to injury.

The only other running backs on the current 80 man roster are
Cuff, Kettani, and White. The latter two are quite likely spending
the 2009 season in the U. S. Navy unless rules change.

 

[mgteich]

Please tell me how many RB's we started the last few years with. I think the answer is four not five.

If Morris or Maroney were injured, Green-Ellis wouldn't play. Even if BOTH Maroney and Morris were injured it is not clear Green-Ellis would play, although he would be active.

FB is an entirely different issue. For now, Hochstein is our fullback.

Green-Ellis would also be regular season insurance against injury.
Maroney and Morris have been prone to injury.

The only other running backs on the current 80 man roster are
Cuff, Kettani, and White. The latter two are quite likely spending
the 2009 season in the U. S. Navy unless rules change.

 

[Jimke]

Please tell me how many RB's we started the last few years with. I think the answer is four not five.

If Morris or Maroney were injured, Green-Ellis wouldn't play. Even if BOTH Maroney and Morris were injured it is not clear Green-Ellis would play, although he would be active.

FB is an entirely different issue. For now, Hochstein is our fullback.

Last year, there were four plus Evans at fullback. Green-Ellis was on
the practice squad. Who is this year's version of Green-Ellis?

Last year, Green-Ellis had 74 rushing attempts, Jordan 80, and
Faulk 83.

 

[mgteich]

I don't pay much attention to the Practice Squad unless we pay the player roster salary as we did for Yates. I don't know which fa RB or draftee from our team or another's will be on our Practice Squad to start the season. I'm sure there will be someone there.

As I have posted before, I'm fine with carrying a fullback if our OC sees the need. However, I can't see having five roster running backs.

Last year, there were four plus Evans at fullback. Green-Ellis was on
the practice squad. Who is this year's version of Green-Ellis?

 

[PatsChowder]

Sammy Morris, Laurence Maroney, and Fred Taylor have all had to deal with injuries. Kevin Faulk is like 33 and has his contract expiring after the season.

To me, that makes it necessary to keep BenJarvus Green-Ellis. Because if we cut him, he will be picked up by another team, there would be no speed dial.

I agree with this statement whole heartedly. The RB core is good, but there are concerns all the way up and down. Last year, 5 different players led the team in rushing on any given occasion.

Obviously, let's see how the preseason goes before we make this call.

 

[jmt57]

Which is more valuable?

It seems that Green-Ellis is camp insurance against injury to one of the other four, a valuable role.

As Box indicated, almost all the TE's have played h-back. Listorti was a prospect at fullback.

Hochstein is our goal-line fullback.

So, what is the best use of this roster spot? Or should the position be used for a WR/STer?

I would normally say FB, then a WR/STer, but with the current roster I would say #5 RB first. There are other players on the roster who have the versatility to fill in at FB and H-Back when needed. The age and history of injuries of the current RBs are one reason, and another RB would get the carries that previously went to a FB. Other rosters have one primary feature back, but with the Pats - and much of the NFL - going away from that and towards a running back by committee approach, another RB makes the most sense.

 

[mgteich]

Please list the last season in which the patriots carried FIVE backs, not including fullbacks, and not including anyone on IR or the various injury lists.

My guess is that the answer is that you will need to make an extensive search.

And, of course, injuries could happen in the preseason, causing us to keep Green-Ellis until the last cut in case of injury to somone else.

 

[Mark Morse]

I would like to see the Pats bring in Brian Toal for look. He can play FB and would be a demon on ST's. Have him and Circiu battle it out for the Larry Izzo ST position. Toal's ability to play LB and FB as well as ST might be valuable.

Toal had a tryout with the Jets, but they chose not to sign him.

 

[jmt57]

Please list the last season in which the patriots carried FIVE backs, not including fullbacks, and not including anyone on IR or the various injury lists.

My guess is that the answer is that you will need to make an extensive search.

And, of course, injuries could happen in the preseason, causing us to keep Green-Ellis until the last cut in case of injury to somone else.

Good point, but if the FB position is covered by a player who's primary position is elsewhere (e.g., Hochstein), then that opens up a roster spot at another position; the most logical spot would be another person in the backfield (i.e, RB.)

A trend I am starting to see is for NFL teams to go away from the 'feature back' and instead go with the 'two-headed monster' at RB. Teams want their best back to be healthy come playoff time and have seen the negative effects of a RB getting 20 carries per game - and have also seen quality players careers shortened due to overuse. If that starting running back position takes up two roster spots instead of one, then there could be a shift from a total of four roster spots to five.

To get back to your question about teams with five running backs, I would guess it goes back to before there was such a term as feature back, in the early 80's or late 70's. I may be wrong, but I can see teams that don't have an Adrian Peterson on their roster going back to that kind of roster. I know that rules changes have resulted in more emphasis on passing rather than running, but I can still see teams carrying an additional RB due to injuries, and a desire to keep the team's best back healthy for the playoffs.

Pats stats: 1982 - 1981 - 1980 - 1979 - 1978

 

[TheComeback]

Please list the last season in which the patriots carried FIVE backs, not including fullbacks, and not including anyone on IR or the various injury lists.

The point is moot. This season is different because we have three running backs on the roster over the age of 30. Taylor, Faulk, Morris, and Maroney have all missed significant amounts of time due to injuries in recent years. One of them is assuredly going to get hurt this year.

In the unlikely event that two or three backs are injured coming into a game, it would seem wise to me to have that insurance back on the depth chart in case one or more goes down while actually playing.

4 RB barely got us through a couple of games last year. Why not keep 5, especially when Green-Ellis is a quality player and gets special teams reps?

 

[mgteich]

What you are saying is that our running backs are so old and decrepid that we need to use an extra roster spot just because of their age and past injury history. This is very sad if it is true. Obviously, we should have signed younger running backs or drafted one, and saved the roster spot, and cut either Maroney or Morris. Many suggested doing just that. And the special team skills of Green-Ellis are irrelevant since he would be inactive for every game where a running or two aren't kept out injured. In fact, if Maroney beats Morris out for the "starting" spot opposite Taylor, I would expect both Morris and Green-Ellis to be inactive. Surely, it is more important to have two top special teamers active.

The point is moot. This season is different because we have three running backs on the roster over the age of 30. Taylor, Faulk, Morris, and Maroney have all missed significant amounts of time due to injuries in recent years. One of them is assuredly going to get hurt this year.

In the unlikely event that two or three backs are injured coming into a game, it would seem wise to me to have that insurance back on the depth chart in case one or more goes down while actually playing.

4 RB barely got us through a couple of games last year. Why not keep 5, especially when Green-Ellis is a quality player and gets special teams reps?