Mike Reiss nigh on gives his 53 man squad...

[lillestroom]

2010 Patriots Player Rankings

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/columns/story?columnist=reiss_mike&id=5363317

_________________________________________________________

Reiss' rankings are primarily based on four factors:

1. Talent.

2. Importance in the short and long term (which projects development).

3. Positional value.

4. Economic value.

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

Jeez. Some of the players I have in my squad dont match who he has. And I certainly wouldn't have Mike Wright as my 20th most valuable player. (At least 15 positions too high IMHO). And Fred Taylor at 41 !!!! ???? !!!! Jeez. He's at least ten places higher on my list.

 

[mgteich]

A 60-man squad is appropriate at the moment. After all, there will be injuries. Welker and Mankins may or may not have roster spots gor Game One. I find his ratings of Wright, G. Warren and Taylor especially interesting.

Some notes, nitpicks and surprises

OFFENSE (25)
If Welker and Mankins are back, I guess his roster is fine. He does have only 8 OL's and Larsen as the backup center. I would include Connolly, but I'm fine with Connolly at 54. A roster spot will open. If not (and we have Welker and Mankins), then we're fine in any case.
I'm fine with Aiken and Slater as two special teamers (Reiss calls them wide receivers which is sort of silly).

DEFENSE (25)
I have only one problem with his list. I would keep another corner instead of Pryor. Green is gone and we've brought in Warren AND Lewis. I just don't see the need for Pryor. I'd rather cut Pryor and keep Wheatley or a street free agent as a 5th corner. Arrington is fine as a 6th corner, a special teamer.

SPECIALISTS (3)
Reiss keeps the obvious 3.

FIRST TO THE PRACTICE SQUAD
I guess that would be Welch and Crable. Deaderick didn't make Reiss' list, but I woiuld expect him to be on the Practice Squad.

LAST CUTS
Larsen sends Ohrnberger packing. I'm fine with that. I'm not as sure of Connolly. I would like to ahve him as a 9th OL.

BOTTOM LINE
I'm fine with the roster, although I expect to see Connolly on the 53 instead of Mankins, and would like to see Wheatley (or another corner) instead of Pryor. In the end, I think Reiss did a fime job.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Very interesting, and thanks for the heads up. FYI, though, posting copyrighted content in full like this is a definite no-go, and can cause a lot of trouble for Ian. Especially with someone like Reiss, who we actually want to support with page hits. For details, check out the stickied thread in this forum.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Very interesting, and thanks for the heads up. FYI, though, posting copyrighted content in full like this is a definite no-go, and can cause a lot of trouble for Ian. Especially with someone like Reiss, who we actually want to support with page hits. For details, check out the stickied thread in this forum.

If i may add, also please provide the link to the article.

 

[Deus Irae]

If i may add, also please provide the link to the article.

NFL: New England Patriots rankings from 1 to 82 - ESPN Boston

I see some spots where I'd disagree pretty strongly with his rankings (Warren below TBC, seriously?), but it's an interesting time killer for the offseason.

 

[DarrylS]

NFL: New England Patriots rankings from 1 to 82 - ESPN Boston

I see some spots where I'd disagree pretty strongly with his rankings (Warren below TBC, seriously?), but it's an interesting time killer for the offseason.

I agree, but at best this is subjective.. not sure how this can be measured, the obvious.. Brady, Welker and Mayo but the rest is a crapshoot.

interesting the pick of Butler over Bodden..

 

[Mike the Brit]

Echo BradyFTW.

And this is NOT MR's 53 but his ranking of players in order of importance to the team.

Bit of a strange criterion but I have one quarrel: how can anyone possibly think that the back-up quarterback is only No. 40 in importance to the team? Let's hope it never happens again, but stuff happens ...

 

[pats1]

Jeez. Some of the players I have in my squad dont match who he has. And I certainly wouldn't have Mike Wright as my 20th most valuable player. (At least 15 positions too high IMHO). And Fred Taylor at 41 !!!! ???? !!!! Jeez. He's at least ten places higher on my list.

Some writers said Taylor looked old during minicamps and could be in danger of being cut.

 

[patriotscpfc]

2010 Patriots Player Rankings

NFL: New England Patriots rankings from 1 to 82 - ESPN Boston

_________________________________________________________

Reiss' rankings are primarily based on four factors:

1. Talent.

2. Importance in the short and long term (which projects development).

3. Positional value.

4. Economic value.

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

Jeez. Some of the players I have in my squad dont match who he has. And I certainly wouldn't have Mike Wright as my 20th most valuable player. (At least 15 positions too high IMHO). And Fred Taylor at 41 !!!! ???? !!!! Jeez. He's at least ten places higher on my list.

You'd have Fred Taylor ahead of Mike Wright by at least 5 spots?

Ridiculous.

 

[BadMoFo]

If Mike Reiss has time to do this, we have really hit the slowest point in any recent offseason.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

This was a pretty pointless exercise by Reiss. Ranking players on their own team? Boring. A better article would've been ranking the Pats units with the rest of the league.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

This was a pretty pointless exercise by Reiss. Ranking players on their own team? Boring. A better article would've been ranking the Pats units with the rest of the league.

I agree

The apocalypse must be nigh

 

[BradyFTW!]

I agree, but at best this is subjective.. not sure how this can be measured, the obvious.. Brady, Welker and Mayo but the rest is a crapshoot.

interesting the pick of Butler over Bodden..

Agreed: I took that to mean that he thinks Butler will eventually grow into more of a long-term role with the team, but I'm not sure that I'd agree with that either. Bodden's only 28, not like he's old or anything, and trying to project how good guys will be 5+ years down the line is foolish anyways. Even if you choose to ignore injury, you just don't know how young guys will develop, you don't know if they'll stay hungry, and you don't even know if they'll still be playing for the Pats down the line.

Case in point: in 2003, I bet you most people would have ranked Eugene Wilson ahead of Rodney Harrison in terms of long-term importance, on the basis of Wilson being younger. Yet Harrison ended up giving us more productive years anyways. Sure, that was a kinda extreme example, but overall I think people tend to overvalue youth by assuming that it will reach (and maintain) its full potential.

 

[lillestroom]

Agreed: I took that to mean that he thinks Butler will eventually grow into more of a long-term role with the team, but I'm not sure that I'd agree with that either. Bodden's only 28, not like he's old or anything, and trying to project how good guys will be 5+ years down the line is foolish anyways. Even if you choose to ignore injury, you just don't know how young guys will develop, you don't know if they'll stay hungry, and you don't even know if they'll still be playing for the Pats down the line.

Case in point: in 2003, I bet you most people would have ranked Eugene Wilson ahead of Rodney Harrison in terms of long-term importance, on the basis of Wilson being younger. Yet Harrison ended up giving us more productive years anyways. Sure, that was a kinda extreme example, but overall I think people tend to overvalue youth by assuming that it will reach (and maintain) its full potential.

Didnt Reiss give his accounts on why he ranked the players as he did?

 

[mgteich]

Are you suggesting that the roster should include anyone who is not one of the 53 most important players to the patriots? I suppose one could put of the 53 most important on the Practice Squad and HOPE that someone doens't pick him up.

Echo BradyFTW.

And this is NOT MR's 53 but his ranking of players in order of importance to the team.

Bit of a strange criterion but I have one quarrel: how can anyone possibly think that the back-up quarterback is only No. 40 in importance to the team? Let's hope it never happens again, but stuff happens ...

 

[lillestroom]

Are you suggesting that the roster should include anyone who is not one of the 53 most important players to the patriots? I suppose one could put of the 53 most important on the Practice Squad and HOPE that someone doens't pick him up.

I cant see anyone outside the top 60 making the team.

So he really is giving us a look-inside his head and what he thinks may happen. Remember injuries WILL arise. So that will shake things up a little

 

[Ring 6]

Are you suggesting that the roster should include anyone who is not one of the 53 most important players to the patriots? I suppose one could put of the 53 most important on the Practice Squad and HOPE that someone doens't pick him up.

I dont think its implausable that a guy ranked lower than 53 woud beat out a guy ranked higher unless the point was to get to 53 considering them as a group. If he 53rd is a DE and the 54th is a LB and the first 52 leave you short a LB and you have one too many DEs then I would expect player 54 stays and 53 is cut.
Also, Reiss included cost as a factor, so a better player costing more may be rated lower than a lesser player at a lower price and with no cap, the better player would stick.

 

[Ring 6]

Agreed: I took that to mean that he thinks Butler will eventually grow into more of a long-term role with the team, but I'm not sure that I'd agree with that either. Bodden's only 28, not like he's old or anything, and trying to project how good guys will be 5+ years down the line is foolish anyways. Even if you choose to ignore injury, you just don't know how young guys will develop, you don't know if they'll stay hungry, and you don't even know if they'll still be playing for the Pats down the line.

Case in point: in 2003, I bet you most people would have ranked Eugene Wilson ahead of Rodney Harrison in terms of long-term importance, on the basis of Wilson being younger. Yet Harrison ended up giving us more productive years anyways. Sure, that was a kinda extreme example, but overall I think people tend to overvalue youth by assuming that it will reach (and maintain) its full potential.

I think a biger factor is their salaries, which is part of his stated criteria.

 

[mgteich]

I believe that cost and position are already factored. But, I do agree that if our longsnapper were listed at 54, we still would have a long snapper on the 53. However, I would consider such a ranking a mistake on the part of Reiss.
===============

I would think that, absent injury or holdout, Reiss would be surprised if any of his top 50 don't make the roster. The obvious current situations are Mankins and Welker. You and I have questions about Pryor and prehaps Slater, but that gives 48 who are very likely to make the roster, and the 5 roster spots at the bottom of the roster. Of course, more spots could open up because of injury/

BOTTOM LINE
This is a pretty solid 48. Of course, they aren't "locks". We have n't seen some of the players in live action yet.

And 5 spots still to be decided seems a bit small; but, given injuries, more of the 51-70 will make it. I certainly think that wheatley, Bussey and Connolly have a solid shot at the roster.

I dont think its implausable that a guy ranked lower than 53 woud beat out a guy ranked higher unless the point was to get to 53 considering them as a group. If he 53rd is a DE and the 54th is a LB and the first 52 leave you short a LB and you have one too many DEs then I would expect player 54 stays and 53 is cut.
Also, Reiss included cost as a factor, so a better player costing more may be rated lower than a lesser player at a lower price and with no cap, the better player would stick.

 

[zoffle]

Can some one start a new thread for me, I only have 17 posts so I can't start a new thread.

So I think it would be interesting to have the forum build a roster by positions first then adding the players to the designated positions.

so it would start with what formations they run and what position/type of player they need , then you would have the number of positions needed, from there you can add how many rotational/backups you need for each position (i.e 1 rotational player for ILB for 3-4 set). Once we have the number of positions/roles we can add players to the roles (and any extra room on the roster).

So I need help doing this because I'm relatively new to football and I thought it could be an interesting way to make a roster in the slow period.

so it could look something like:
Defense:

3-4:
2 DE (2-Gap)
1 NT (2-gap)
2 edge setting/pass rushing OLB's (or OLB/DE hybrids)
1 WILB (faster, sideline to sideline player)
1 SILB (thumper)
2 CB
2 S

Etc