Positional Battles: The Fifth Running Back Spot

[PatsFans.com Article]

Positional Battles: The Fifth Running Back Spot
By: Damien Jarrett

Now that Free Agency Frenzy is out of the way, the dust is beginning to settle down a little, and now everyone should be on the practise field barring injury! So I think it’s a good time to start discussing the key battles going on throughout the Patriot’s roster. One of the more intriguing battles, in my eyes, is the fifth running back spot. I think it’s safe to say the Patriots are going to carry at least four through, but feel that they need to take a fifth also. But which one? For me, that battle comes down to Sammy Morris and Kevin Faulk!...

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY​

 

[jah]

I think we'll only carry four RBs. Even in 2009 when we carried five and had multiple injuries, the fifth RB (BJGE) almost never saw the field.

 

[Sciz]

In my opinion, the team is in great shape as far as early-down RBs go. Green-Ellis is solid, Ridley has looked good, Vereen has tons and tons of potential, and Woodhead can contribute on some early downs. Whoever the 5th RB is, he won't be needed here, unless we see at least two injuries.

The problem is that "third down back" role. Woodhead was great in that role last year, but if he goes down, then the choices are between Green-Ellis, who is not the receiver that I want, one of the rookies, who I wouldn't trust in blitz-pickup yet, or the 5th RB. Hence, I'd pick Faulk as my #5 RB, even if it's only as Woodhead insurance.

 

[Snake Eyes]

In my opinion, the team is in great shape as far as early-down RBs go. Green-Ellis is solid, Ridley has looked good, Vereen has tons and tons of potential, and Woodhead can contribute on some early downs. Whoever the 5th RB is, he won't be needed here, unless we see at least two injuries.

The problem is that "third down back" role. Woodhead was great in that role last year, but if he goes down, then the choices are between Green-Ellis, who is not the receiver that I want, one of the rookies, who I wouldn't trust in blitz-pickup yet, or the 5th RB. Hence, I'd pick Faulk as my #5 RB, even if it's only as Woodhead insurance.

I like Faulk for that role as well, but shy not keep him on the 'shadow roster' like Seau was and save the roster for someone else?

 

[JFK]

Sammy Morris would be the 5th. He is a good run blocker and plays ST very well. Faulk would be on the shadow roster.

 

[BlueThunder]

Not sure BB keeps 5 RB's having both Morris and Faulk potentially available with a phone call......

Shadow roster for both as long as Vereen and Ridley are healthy at start of season.......

RB , QB, TE, DB doesn't seem to be areas of need at this time......however an extra LB , DL or OL are probably more vital moving forward.....maybe even an extra WR......

Will be interesting to see the #'s by position on the final roster......

 

[VJCPatriot]

Here's the thing - if Ridley can play adequate fullback then I think Morris becomes the odd man out. If Woodhead and Vereen look great in camp, then the pendulum swings and perhaps Faulk will be the odd man out. Hate to see any of the vets go, but competition is a good thing and the RB position has plenty of it in 2011!

 

[jmt57]

Besides injuries, the question of whether the Pats carry four or five running backs really comes down to more of how much the rookies show Belichick in camp, rather than the known factor of what Morris or Faulk can do. If they both gain Belichick's trust then the Pats will probably go with four RB; if not they break camp with five.

Likewise, whether that fifth person is Morris or Faulk if the Pats decide to go that route would still depend on the rookies. If Vereen impresses it would hurt Faulk's chances; if not, Faulk's chances of staying improve. If Ridley performs well it hurts Morris and if he doesn't, then Morris has a better chance of sticking.

 

[Frezo]

I don't understand why Kettani isn't in camp. Is he still under military restrictions of some kind?