Does BB like a jack of all trades more than a master of one a little too much???

[lillestroom]

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re: Does BB like a jack of all trades more than a master of one a little too much ???

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

Are You serious? Questioning if Coach "Situational Substitution" likes to eschew specialists who can do one thing well, prefering only good all around players.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Does BB like a jack of all trades more than a master of one a little too much ???

I'm wondering if I should even bother to take the time to go through a player by player analysis to show you just how bad the premise for this thread is, or just let someone else do it for me.

 

[Headcase]

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

Unless a player is #1 at his position, he almost has to be able to make contributions else where on the roster to make ANY NFL team, not just the Patriots. The two players that you are looking at would probably be low on the depth chart and would rarely see the field, if they were better they would be higher on the depth chart, so it is either carry dead weight, or get a contribution from them. And that is generally accomplished by participating in other ways, including STs.

SSDD

 

[Tunescribe]

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

Yes, you're right. You should seriously consider faxing this crucially insightful brainstorm to the Patriots offices so BB and staff can re-think their approach to personnel.

 

[All_Around_Brown]

This thread is a perfect example of why I don't post here anymore. One person throws out some food for thought, quite innocuously, and a then as group of clowns throw snide, smart arse replies on it.

The poster has a point, and is making a cogent argument. The rest of you who diss him/her for that need to get a life. Pathetic...

 

[DarrylS]

I like our method, and the versatility of our players...

This works for this system.. no need to make it different.

Yesterday Mazz and Felger were whining about how the Pats do not pay their players enough, and that this organization is basically in disarray...

BB also values ST's more than most other coaches, and we have really ramped this area up in the past couple of years.. a very good proven position coach, O'Brien.. locking up Gostowski, find a replacement for Paxton and "The Zoltan"... 5-10 yards either way can make a huge differenc.e

 

[Rob0729]

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

I think almost every team in the NFL approaches depth like the Pats do in that respect. The only way you can have a specialist (a guy who only rushes the passer for example and nothing else including special teams) is if the guy is the first guy off the bench. I can see Brandon Tate (used only on deep passes in certain formations like the Pats did with Donte Stallworth) and Cunningham (pass rush specialist) as those types of players at least as the season begins.

Unfortunately, if you are fourth, fifth, or sixth on the depth chart, you have to contribute on special teams. You cannot carry a guy on the roster who cannot contribute on special teams and might only see 1-3 plays a game if he is lucky barring injuries. That definitely isn't unique to the Patriots (all you had to do is watch last night's Hard Knocks to see that).

 

[Fencer]

I'm not convinced the production from STs has been all that great in recent years.

The Pats would never have won their first Super Bowl without dominating Pitt on STs in the AFC Championship game, and there was other ST goodness in BB's early years here. (Besides the obvious, where by "obvious" I mean FGs.) But once the rest of the league got the memo about not neglecting STs, just how much of an advantage have they been?

 

[RayClay]

Be specific. How can you answer a question about "players" when you don't know who they are?

 

[spacecrime]

This thread is a perfect example of why I don't post here anymore. One person throws out some food for thought, quite innocuously, and a then as group of clowns throw snide, smart arse replies on it.

The poster has a point, and is making a cogent argument. The rest of you who diss him/her for that need to get a life. Pathetic...

Check the mirrror, bud. Isn't there something seriously wrong with insulting people because they insult people? Something about pots and kettles?

The problem is that the premise of the OP is suspect. When two players have roughly identical abilities in one area, and one of them can help the team in other areas and the other can not, isn't it obvious which player should be kept? Also, it isn't BB who does this. All NFL teams do it.

You can bring 45 players to a game. There are 22 starters plus K, P, LS.

Plus gunners and returners and gunner blockers on STs.

It is impossible to back up each position unless players do double or triple duty. Not all players must do double duty. Many of the starters do not, but their job is defined in the game.

ALL backups need to have more than one position.

The OP doesn't name these players who might be cut - he doesn't even know if they will be - but if he did, I doubt they would be starters. It is hard to tell what he is talking about.

 

[spacecrime]

I'd like to raise something which has given me a little food for thought recently.

Its no hidden secret that BB likes players who can contribute in more than one role. Be they hybrids (safety-LB) (LB's who can turn to-FB), (WR's\LB's who can play special teams), Linemen who can play both T and G

But do the Pats carry a few too many players who can double up? When I look at the projected 53 man squad, I see at least two players who I see making the squad because they "offer" flexibility on other fronts.

People can be in complete disagreement with me, but I see two players who I believe could really contribute to the Pats this year and are likely to be cut for players who are 5th and 6th in the depth chart, but can offer special teams.

I in no way underestimate the importance of ST in the modern game but is anyone in agreement with what I'm trying to get across?

Name the players you are talking about, please.

 

[PatsBoy12]

This thread is a perfect example of why I don't post here anymore. One person throws out some food for thought, quite innocuously, and a then as group of clowns throw snide, smart arse replies on it.

The poster has a point, and is making a cogent argument. The rest of you who diss him/her for that need to get a life. Pathetic...

EXACTLY! It's pathetic. I thought that this would provide some interesting discussion, but this is what you get. It happens all too often on discussion boards nowadays.

 

[JackBauer]

This thread is a perfect example of why I don't post here anymore. One person throws out some food for thought, quite innocuously, and a then as group of clowns throw snide, smart arse replies on it.

The poster has a point, and is making a cogent argument. The rest of you who diss him/her for that need to get a life. Pathetic...

Would you like some french cries with that waaaaburger?

 

[Off The Grid]

This thread is a perfect example of why I don't post here anymore. One person throws out some food for thought, quite innocuously, and a then as group of clowns throw snide, smart arse replies on it.

The poster has a point, and is making a cogent argument. The rest of you who diss him/her for that need to get a life. Pathetic...

What's ironic is that the smart @$$es in question are EXCELLENT posters!!

Have an HEART, guys, if a Rookie + Fellow Smart @$$ may presume to so council you: The OP was THOUGTFULL, at least, which is more than the majority of the debris out there are...excluding your OWN fine contributions, naturally!!

 

[Off The Grid]

Be specific. How can you answer a question about "players" when you don't know who they are?

Good point...

 

[Off The Grid]

Name the players you are talking about, please.

Good point.

And, indeed: In my short time here, I've seen more than one DUBIOUS undertaking by Lille, there. Perhaps I gave him too much credit...

 

[mgteich]

Agreed............

Name the players you are talking about, please.

 

[TheComeback]

This thread is a perfect example of why I don't post here anymore. One person throws out some food for thought, quite innocuously, and a then as group of clowns throw snide, smart arse replies on it.

The poster has a point, and is making a cogent argument. The rest of you who diss him/her for that need to get a life. Pathetic...

In this instance, I totally agree with you. The poster here was polite and wasn't just angrily criticizing the Pats' brass like so many others. The question might be a bit misguided, since there are quite a few guys on the team who only excel at one thing (like Leigh Bodden or Asante in the past).

But I think his point is this: just how valuable is a player who is "versatile" but isn't all that good at some of his jobs? I'm looking at a guy like Pierre Woods, or Eric Alexander, who in my opinion is strictly a special teamer and awful at LB.

 

[fester]

I think almost every team in the NFL approaches depth like the Pats do in that respect. The only way you can have a specialist (a guy who only rushes the passer for example and nothing else including special teams) is if the guy is the first guy off the bench. I can see Brandon Tate (used only on deep passes in certain formations like the Pats did with Donte Stallworth) and Cunningham (pass rush specialist) as those types of players at least as the season begins.

The big equation is the number of spots (45 for game day roster) versus the number of tasks. There are more tasks than spots.

Let's take a look at the offense's tasks assuming a combination of I-formation, 2 TE, shotgun w/3wr, shotgun w/4wr, and 5wr spread as well as a goalline/short yardage jumbo package. I've got 24 tasks which need to be covered by maybe 20 to 21 game day actives spots. Some of these tasks may not be filled on any given game such as I-formation fullback

1st QB, 2nd QB, Split-end, Flanker, Flanker 2 Slot 1, Slot 2, receiving TE, inline TE, jumbo TE, fullback, H-back, jumbo FB, 1st down RB, 2nd down RB, 3rd Down RB, LT,LG, C, RG, RT, swing tackle, interior o-line back-up, G/T reserve.

Let's look at the defense now: I have at least 25 tasks

LDE (30 Front), NT, RDE (30 front), back-up NT, back-up DE (30 front) LOLB, WILB, SILB, ROLB, CB 1, CB 2, FS, SS, Coverage ILB, back-up OLB, LDE (40 front), RDE (40 front), DT (40 front) DT 2 (40 front), Big Nickel safety, Little nickel CB, Big Dime back, Little dime back, dime linebacker, Hail Mary deep safety

Special teams: 30 or more tasks.
Punter, Kicker, Long Snapper, back-up long snapper
Gunner 1, Gunner 2, gunner blocker 1, gunner blocker 2, gunner blocker 3 gunner blocker 4, personal protector, wedge breaker, LKR, RKR, lead blocker, PR, multitude of blockers and tacklers.

On game-day, the Patriots have at least 79 tasks for 45 players to cover. Tom Brady will not be covering punts. Neither will Vince Wilfork return kicks. Multi-tasking, especially on multiple low-play count roles is the way the Pats (or any other team) can cover all the tasks.

For instance, Pierre Woods can cover the back-up OLB role, and three or four special team roles. He might be on the field for 8% of total snaps in five roles. Belicheck has historically used linemen (offensive and defensive) as his Jumbo FB because the Pats don't go Jumbo that often and dedicating a roster spot to a specialist who might see 5 snaps a game and do perhaps a slightly better job than a generalist who is cross-trained to the Jumbo FB role and covers two other roles is not worth the price of a roster spot. Arrington may earn a spot as the dime back, Gunner, Gunner blocker, FG block and kick-off coverage tackler over Wheatley who may just be a dime back and gunner.

The great question is how does a team cover 70 to 100 game-day tasks with only 45 players. There are lots of different combinations that can work, but they all involve non-specialists who can cover three or more tasks instead of relying exclusively on specialists who have one task and one task only.