Do We Need More Than 8 Defensive Backs?

[mgteich]

MAKE YOU CASE FOR
Baker or James or Mitchell or Wesley or Richardson on the 53 man roster

I'll start. I think we need experienced backups at corner. James and Wesley fill that role. I think that we can go with 5 wide receivers.


======================================================
Presuming that Samuel is back, we have eight solid performers. It seems that we have for 0-4 more on how we resolve our reciver situtation. If we keep 6 receivers and 4 TE's, we will likely not have room for more the 9 defensive backs.

THE EIGHT
Samuel, Hobbs, Gay, Harrison, Wilson, Sanders, Meriweather, Andrews

PRACTICE SQUAD
Richardson

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Didn't Richardson injure his arm? He may be IRed.

 

[RayClay]

MAKE YOU CASE FOR
Baker or James or Mitchell or Wesley or Richardson on the 53 man roster

I'll start. I think we need experienced backups at corner. James and Wesley fill that role. I think that we can go with 5 wide receivers.


======================================================
Presuming that Samuel is back, we have eight solid performers. It seems that we have for 0-4 more on how we resolve our reciver situtation. If we keep 6 receivers and 4 TE's, we will likely not have room for more the 9 defensive backs.

THE EIGHT
Samuel, Hobbs, Gay, Harrison, Wilson, Sanders, Meriweather, Andrews

PRACTICE SQUAD
Richardson

If Samuel's back, we've got quality depth at CB as well as safety so special teams play will factor in a lot more.

I do think we use one more DB and one less LB on teams this year.

When the STs are decided, I think you'll see Mitchell and maybe one more 9 or 10.

Also upside will count for these types.

If we drop Mills, Rivers and drown Jones (sorry ) One of them will be available to be resigned, plus you can use a lineman in a pinch. (3 TE)

I'm not sure we'll carry 6 WRs. If Gaffney and Moss are healthy, they'll cut someone. Maybe Gaffney goes on IR.

Plus less LBs (Davis)

So I say Keep Richardson and one of Mitchel or Baker.

Unlike the journeyman tight ends, I think someone might take a shot at a young CB who's looked good with a lot of playing time. Probably won't make it to the squad.

The Jets still have Poteat and are starting a rookie, why wouldn't they take a shot? They copy us at everything else.

 

[Fencer]

We need to be prepared for 1/3 of any given unit to go down with injury. We need 6 DBs to put on the field at once. Therefore, we need at least 9 DBs.

Only Harrison/Wilson/Sanders/Meriweather/Samuel/Hobbs/Gay create great feelings of comfort, and some of us might even quibble about various members of that list in that regard, especially any safety not named "Rodney".

But we need at least two more who can run around and make tackles, preferably getting a hand on the occasional football as well.

And yes, given the importance of getting a hand on the ball, at least one more should be a no-apologies corner. Andrews can be the other.

Now, I'm not clear on why you don't think it's OK to use 15 spots on the speed positions (6 WR plus 9 DB). The counts at other spots could be:

OL -- 9
RB/FB -- 4
QB -- 3
TE -- 3
K/P/LS -- 3

leaving 16 for DL and LB.

DL looks like Seymour/Warren/Green/Wright/Smith as the primary DEs, and Wilfork/somebody as the primary NTs, for 7. That leaves room for 9 LBs -- 5 regular vets, Izzo, and 3 of the young guys.

So it seems I'm making a case for keeping a 9th DB, while cutting the 4th TE and cutting two of Mays/Alexander/Woods/Rogers/Lua, the latter two of whom would be fine PS guys anyway. And cutting Chad Brown, I guess.

If that all is too painful in the cut department, yo-yo Testaverde off the roster for a while until somebody gets IRed.

 

[RayClay]

MAKE YOU CASE FOR
Baker or James or Mitchell or Wesley or Richardson on the 53 man roster

I'll start. I think we need experienced backups at corner. James and Wesley fill that role. I think that we can go with 5 wide receivers.


======================================================
Presuming that Samuel is back, we have eight solid performers. It seems that we have for 0-4 more on how we resolve our reciver situtation. If we keep 6 receivers and 4 TE's, we will likely not have room for more the 9 defensive backs.

THE EIGHT
Samuel, Hobbs, Gay, Harrison, Wilson, Sanders, Meriweather, Andrews

PRACTICE SQUAD
Richardson

Why does Andrews get in the "core" lineup? I'd probably keep him, but it would be on pretty equal footing with the rest of the bubble players.

I'd say 7 core, everybody else, make a case.

 

[RayClay]

andromeda sed:

If that all is too painful in the cut department, yo-yo Testaverde off the roster for a while until somebody gets IRed.

Yeah, that's a joke. Imagine cutting somebody we might need now or for the future to keep a seat warm.

Does he have another damn record to break?

 

[captain stone]

We need at least 9 DBs, 6 of whom can cover receivers.

If I made the decisions, my DBs would be:
SS: Harrison - Sanders
SS/ST: Mitchell (2 ST tackles on Friday)
FS/CB: Wilson - Meriweather
FS/CB/ST: Andrews
CB: Samuel - Hobbs - Gay

I would go one step farther and strongly consider a 10th DB, and drop all of Izzo - Alexander - Mays. The 10th could be a CB/FS like Tory James, or a FS/CB/ST like Dante Wesley (1 ST tackle, but also 1 ST penalty). Richardson could be IR'ed, Anam could be IR'ed/PS'ed, and Baker waived-injured.

 

[All_Around_Brown]

We need at least 9 DBs, 6 of whom can cover receivers.

If I made the decisions, my DBs would be:
SS: Harrison - Sanders
SS/ST: Mitchell (2 ST tackles on Friday)
FS/CB: Wilson - Meriweather
FS/CB/ST: Andrews
CB: Samuel - Hobbs - Gay

I would go one step farther and strongly consider a 10th DB, and drop all of Izzo - Alexander - Mays. The 10th could be a CB/FS like Tory James, or a FS/CB/ST like Dante Wesley (1 ST tackle, but also 1 ST penalty). Richardson could be IR'ed, Anam could be IR'ed/PS'ed, and Baker waived-injured.

drop Izzo? Thats blasphemy around here. Been there done that. Here comes the wrath.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I think 9 would be ideal. But, I think we carry 10 because of the recent injury histories of some of our db's. Harrison,Wilson and Gay haven't played much the last 2 yrs. Samuel reporting late. Adds up to 10 for me.

CB Samuel,Hobbs,James,Gay,Wesley and Andrews.

S Harrison,Wilson,Sanders and Merriweather.

Mel Mitchell could push Andrews or Wesley for that 10th spot. My 53 has
DEF 26
7 DL, 9LB, 10 DB

SP Teams 3

OFF 24
8OL,3TE,6WR,4RB,3QB

 

[mgteich]

I also believe that 15 is the right number, with 5 WR's and 10 DB's. I started with 8 DB's and add James and Wesley (although Mitchell is fine).

Now, I'm not clear on why you don't think it's OK to use 15 spots on the speed positions (6 WR plus 9 DB).

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If we drop Izzo, we drop the only guy consistently tackling the enemy on KRs.

 

[Oswlek]

Why does Andrews get in the "core" lineup? I'd probably keep him, but it would be on pretty equal footing with the rest of the bubble players.

I'd say 7 core, everybody else, make a case.

Andrews is a fabulous gunner and seems to be playing well this PS. IIRC it was Breer that just gave him a positve review on his coverage against Carolina.

He aint knocking Sanders or Meriweather out of their likely backup S spots, but his a roster lock, IMHO.

 

[mgteich]

Andrews has made his case. Personally, right now, he is ahead of Meriweather in the depth chart at safety. He is also our top gunner. So, I would be shocked if any of the seven don't make the roster. We still need to see about Samuel.

Andrews is a fabulous gunner and seems to be playing well this PS. IIRC it was Breer that just gave him a positve review on his coverage against Carolina.

He aint knocking Sanders or Meriweather out of their likely backup S spots, but his a roster lock, IMHO.

 

[AzPatsFan]

If we drop Izzo, we drop the only guy consistently tackling the enemy on KRs.

I'm not sure that Larry has a single ST tackle this preseason. His play has fallen off the last two years, and he is thirty three. The last guy on ST left who is over thirty. Ordinarily that would be in his favor, for a leadership role, but there are a lot of ST leaders available, including the leaders of STs on two other clubs in Mitchell and Washington, and our own risng "Jerod Cherry-like" is Willie Andrews.

 

[mgteich]

Larry is Izzo is no longer a pro-bowler. He has lost a step. It is simply ridiculous to therefore conclude that he is not more valuable as a Ster than whoever you would keep for the final three roster spots. Izzo is on his contract year. After this year is the time of decision, and Larry will make the decision. He is likely to be more valuable as a STer than the last three players as long he can physically play.

And BTW, Andrews has made this team. He is our top Ster.

I'm not sure that Larry has a single ST tackle this preseason. His play has fallen off the last two years, and he is thirty three. The last guy on ST left who is over thirty. Ordinarily that would be in his favor, for a leadership role, but there are a lot of ST leaders available, including the leaders of STs on two other clubs in Mitchell and Washington, and our own risng "Jerod Cherry-like" is Willie Andrews.

 

[Oswlek]

Larry is Izzo is no longer a pro-bowler. He has lost a step. It is simply ridiculous to therefore conclude that he is not more valuable as a Ster than whoever you would keep for the final three roster spots. Izzo is on his contract year. After this year is the time of decision, and Larry will make the decision. He is likely to be more valuable as a STer than the last three players as long he can physically play.

And BTW, Andrews has made this team. He is our top Ster.

While I can see your premise, your comments are mildly contradictory. If Izzo has lost a step and should no longer be considered a pro-bowler, why would it be ridiculous to think that his spot would be better utilized by another player?

Sure he is almost certain to be a better ST player than whoever else comes along, but is the diminishing gap between him and somebody else worth the fact that he is relatively useless in all other phases of the game?

 

[mgteich]

If he is not a probowler, he doen't deserve a roster spot? Are all our players pro-bowlers, or even potential probowlers? All our special teamers? Rashad Baker might make this team!

While I can see your premise, your comments are mildly contradictory. If Izzo has lost a step and should no longer be considered a pro-bowler, why would it be ridiculous to think that his spot would be better utilized by another player?

Sure he is almost certain to be a better ST player than whoever else comes along, but is the diminishing gap between him and somebody else worth the fact that he is relatively useless in all other phases of the game?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I'm not sure that Larry has a single ST tackle this preseason. His play has fallen off the last two years, and he is thirty three. The last guy on ST left who is over thirty. Ordinarily that would be in his favor, for a leadership role, but there are a lot of ST leaders available, including the leaders of STs on two other clubs in Mitchell and Washington, and our own risng "Jerod Cherry-like" is Willie Andrews.

I recall him (Izzo) making the play in Friday's game.

EDIT: 3-S.Gostkowski kicks 68 yards from NE 30 to CAR 2. 37-N.Goings to CAR 17 for 15 yards (53-L.Izzo).

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playb...ayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2007&week=PRE3

 

[Oswlek]

If he is not a probowler, he doen't deserve a roster spot? Are all our players pro-bowlers, or even potential probowlers? All our special teamers? Rashad Baker might make this team!

Please drop the sarcasm and address the post. I didn't say he needs to be a probowler to be better - in fact I said the exact opposite if you read carefully - just that if Izzo is no longer a superstar on ST he may not offer as much value as another guy who could play ST almost as well but has a use on another part of the game.

 

[mgteich]

IMHO, there are no players who might be the final cut who play special teams almost as well as Izzo and who might have a use on anothe part of the game.

Please drop the sarcasm and address the post. I didn't say he needs to be a probowler to be better - in fact I said the exact opposite if you read carefully - just that if Izzo is no longer a superstar on ST he may not offer as much value as another guy who could play ST almost as well but has a use on another part of the game.