Would BB keep 5 backs?

[Rob0729]

5 RBs would be of more benefit than 4 QBs.

Personally, I think except for future developmental reasons, both are about as useful as carrying two kickers. Either it being the 5th RB or the 4th QB, that guy will never be activated during the regular season.

I expect Cassel or Guttieriez to be cut (most likely Cassel), but I still see the likelihood of 4 QBs over 5 RBs because you are not going to keep Sammy Morris off the active roster to develop him for future years. That is the only reason you keep an extra player in a position unless there are major concerns about depth in the position (last year being the exception because of Belichick's loyalty to Troy Brown). I don't see the RB position being in that scenario.

Belichick may have kept four QBs in 2000 because of lack of talent, but the RB position was horrible that year and he didn't carry 5 RBs. Even with Terry Allen as the Pats leading back, he didn't carry five.

Belichick has been know to surprise people with his roster moves. So I will not say it is impossible that they won't carry 5 RBs, but I still think it is unlikely especially since they will carry an extra CB or two and an extra LB.

 

[DefenseRules]

I almost forgot one possibility. Faulk and Kaczur had some off-field issues this offseason. Issues that Emperor Goodell might feel are worth a four game suspension. Maybe the Pats are preparing themselves for that possibility? I will be ABSOLUTELY STUNNED if Emperor Goodell does not come after them. Then again, maybe he will be to busy helping the Jets acquire Lord Favre.

 

[Rob0729]

I strongly favored cutting Bishop. We don't need 4 QB's.

I have a 25 man offense with the same 7 DL's as we have had for a couple of years.

That leaves 18 for linebackers and defensive backs, many of whom will play on the coverage teams with some of the defensive starters. The reality is that only six linebackers and six defensive backs get the vast majority of reps at their positions. The remaining six players are primarily STer's. My group for this year:

WHEATLEY, WOODS, ALEXANDER, IZZO, WILHITE, and TANK WILLIAMS

Are these bodies good enough to back up at linebacker and defensive back if need. I think so!

I still don't see why you would keep 5 RBs unless they are going to develop Morris or Evans for the future (yes, I am assuming Jordan wins out over Morris). Obviously, future development is not a reason to keep either. Usually, the guys deep on a depth chart are developmental guys who have a chance to work their way off the special teams to actual playing time in the future.

It would be impossible to activate 5 RBs week after week. Many weeks it will be tough to activate 4 RBs. I just don't see why the Pats would keep an extra RB just for insurance especially when the fourth or fifth RB may have a $2.1 million cap hit. I wouldn't be shocked to see it happening, but I would be surprised.

 

[patsox23]

They will definitely carry 5 backs if all of those are healthy. IMO, Heath Evans is a well-rounded RB who does a lot of little things, and that staff loves him. It's very, very unlikely that any of the others is cut, unless Jordan falls on his face.

They're carrying 5. Book it.

 

[patsox23]

I was bummed when BB picked Bethel with Kelly Washington still on the board. And BB brought him in to FOxboro for a private workout pre-draft.

I remain bummed that we didn't take Anquan Boldin instead of either of them.

 

[spacecrime]

I remain bummed that we didn't take Anquan Boldin instead of either of them.

Yeah, though that is hindsight talking for me. Boldin wasn't one of the WRs i wanted.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I almost forgot one possibility. Faulk and Kaczur had some off-field issues this offseason. Issues that Emperor Goodell might feel are worth a four game suspension. Maybe the Pats are preparing themselves for that possibility? I will be ABSOLUTELY STUNNED if Emperor Goodell does not come after them. Then again, maybe he will be to busy helping the Jets acquire Lord Favre.

Emperor Goodell is constrained by the CBA. It says a player cannot be suspended for a first time drug offense. He goes into supervision and counseling. Only commisions of feloneys like Mike Vick or Rae Caruth get immediate suspensions. So Faulk and Kaczur just pee into the cup more often...

Really Kevin Faulk is getting too old to be messing with weed...

If Nick was addicted to Oxy when did he dry out?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It would be impossible to activate 5 RBs week after week. Many weeks it will be tough to activate 4 RBs. I just don't see why the Pats would keep an extra RB just for insurance especially when the fourth or fifth RB may have a $2.1 million cap hit. I wouldn't be shocked to see it happening, but I would be surprised.

How are you counting RBs here? The Pats only have five RBs total on the roster--Maroney, Morris, Faulk, Green-Ellis, and now Jordan--plus two FBs, Evans and Eckel.

For the second half of the season last year, they had all the backs on the roster (Maroney, Faulk, Evans, Eckel) activated.

 

[dhamz]

Don't know if he will but there is no reason he wouldn't. He has shown consistently over the years that he is not tied to a certain number of guys at any position.

Also, we were carrying 5 RBs last year before Morris got hurt so I don't see why it would be a surprise to break camp with that.

 

[signbabybrady]

Don't know if he will but there is no reason he wouldn't. He has shown consistently over the years that he is not tied to a certain number of guys at any position.

Also, we were carrying 5 RBs last year before Morris got hurt so I don't see why it would be a surprise to break camp with that.

As far as I remember we did not carry 5 last year.

We did not have Eckel coming out of camp. We aquired him during the season and he was on the practice squad until Morris went down. There is a possibilty we didn't aquire him until Morris went down but I believe he was on the practice squad first until Morris went down. Unless we brought someone other than Eckel in before Morris went down than we only had four gusy at any one point last year. And now only Ben Jarvis would be ellidgible for the practice squad.

You do bring up a good point that BB has shown he is not tied to specific numbers just what is best for the team.

 

[dhamz]

We did not have Eckel coming out of camp. We aquired him during the season and he was on the practice squad until Morris went down.

Not true. We were carrying 5 RBs when Morris was hurt against Dallas. Eckel scored a TD in the Dallas game.

 

[pats1]

Not true. We were carrying 5 RBs when Morris was hurt against Dallas. Eckel scored a TD in the Dallas game.

True, but Maroney was coming off missing three weeks due to injury.

 

[PatsFan37]

Interesting that people compare 4 QBswith 5 RBs. In many ways, carrying extra RBs is insurance against a QB getting hurt. If Cassel is cut and Brady is hurt (or even if Cassel is still on the team), the game plan will emphasize the running game a lot more.

Imagine having to start Guitierrez and Faulk/Evans. That'll be tough game. Even Guitierrez and Morris/Faulk for a few games is going to wear down that Morris/Faulk combo pretty fast.

 

[14thDragon]

Well, I look at it this way.

4 QBs does not make a terrible lot of sense, if Gutz does not look great in pre-season, he can be sent to the PS. If Cassell does not look great, he can be let go. So it will likely be 3 Qbs.

It is almost always 9 OL, so I will take that as set baring injury.

At WR, I think I see it at 5. IMMHO, I think the development of Slater, and Ventrone as reserve reciever/defensive back, for a primary ST is to allow for keeping 5 WR while maintaining depth from ST.

I really think the trade off is going to be between a 4th TE or a 5th RB. Given that we are a bit thin at talent at TE, and given the far greater talent at RB, I would say that the 5th RB has the inside track. Mostly because for the most part, all the RBs in the mix have good pass catching abilty. So I could see more split back and 2 back sets replacing the former 2 TE sets. This also would me we will see some more reserve LB and back-up tackles playing the extra TE in 2-3 TE sets.

 

[Rob0729]

How are you counting RBs here? The Pats only have five RBs total on the roster--Maroney, Morris, Faulk, Green-Ellis, and now Jordan--plus two FBs, Evans and Eckel.

For the second half of the season last year, they had all the backs on the roster (Maroney, Faulk, Evans, Eckel) activated.

When I say many weeks, I mean that it is more frequent than the rare occassion. I would say (and I could be wrong) that nearly half the season last year the Pats went with only 3 RBs active.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

As far as I remember we did not carry 5 last year.

We did not have Eckel coming out of camp. We aquired him during the season and he was on the practice squad until Morris went down. There is a possibilty we didn't aquire him until Morris went down but I believe he was on the practice squad first until Morris went down. Unless we brought someone other than Eckel in before Morris went down than we only had four gusy at any one point last year. And now only Ben Jarvis would be ellidgible for the practice squad.

You do bring up a good point that BB has shown he is not tied to specific numbers just what is best for the team.

The 'lphins cut him in the final round of cuts on 9/1 last year. The Pats signed him to the PS on 9/3 at a salary of $125K (the standard salary for PS players last year was $80K).

 

[mgteich]

My bottom line is that we would have been stronger last year in the playoffs with Jordan on the squad instead of a sixth WR or instead of Eckel.

Both the big guns at RB were injured last year. Faulk is a fine 3rd down back who has been injured in the past. I strongly feel that Jordan is a major asset even if he doesn't play. Insurance is important. But, he will play, on short yardage and out of the backfield.

Evans is our best blocker, a receiver out of the backfield, and a fine Ster. In short, he is perfect fit at FB for the patriots.

And to restate the obvious, Jordan gives us a better running game for the playoffs and a better red zone offense.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

When I say many weeks, I mean that it is more frequent than the rare occassion. I would say (and I could be wrong) that nearly half the season last year the Pats went with only 3 RBs active.

The Pats had only 3 RBs/FBs active in Weeks 4, 5 (no Maroney, no Eckel), 17, and the JAX playoff game (no Morris, no Eckel). Every other game they had four RBs/FBs active.

 

[BPF]

Interesting that people compare 4 QBswith 5 RBs. In many ways, carrying extra RBs is insurance against a QB getting hurt. If Cassel is cut and Brady is hurt (or even if Cassel is still on the team), the game plan will emphasize the running game a lot more.

Imagine having to start Guitierrez and Faulk/Evans. That'll be tough game. Even Guitierrez and Morris/Faulk for a few games is going to wear down that Morris/Faulk combo pretty fast.

Excellent point.

Also everyone is getting caught up in the 5 RB's thing. BB will keep the best 53 that will help make the Pats more succesful as a team. Last yr for ex the Pats opening day roster featured 10 LB's (Alexander, Bruschi, Colvin, Herron, Izzo, Mays, Seau, Thomas, Vrabel and Woods), I don't see that being the case this yr even if a guy like Guyton makes it. We have 12 LB's in camp (Vrabel, Woods, Redd, Hobson, Alexander, Mayo, Bruschi, Izzo, Ruud, Thomas Crable, Guyton) and I have 8 definite early on here (Vrabel, Woods, Hobson, Mayo, Bruschi, Thomas, Crable, Guyton). Also keep in mind that Tank Williams has been lining up at ILB. I believe Izzo is in a battle for a roster spot but with Aiken not any of the other LB's. Aiken has played Izzo's protector role on punt team in practice and those two are battling it out for a ST position because the two are obviously strictly ST guys so they can't be looked at as a LB or WR. So in terms of last yrs roster the LB # could be down 2 to on opening day. So we can't look at it with past rosters in mind, rather we have to focus on this yr and what role each player will play-whether that be on offense, defense and/or special teams. Bottom line, the best 53 will make it and I believe that Jordan will end up being one of those, because eventhough he will not be playing ST's he can and should fill many roles in this team-so he brings value.

 

[pats1]

Excellent point.

Also everyone is getting caught up in the 5 RB's thing. BB will keep the best 53 that will help make the Pats more succesful as a team. Last yr for ex the Pats opening day roster featured 10 LB's (Alexander, Bruschi, Colvin, Herron, Izzo, Mays, Seau, Thomas, Vrabel and Woods), I don't see that being the case this yr even if a guy like Guyton makes it. We have 12 LB's in camp (Vrabel, Woods, Redd, Hobson, Alexander, Mayo, Bruschi, Izzo, Ruud, Thomas Crable, Guyton) and I have 8 definite early on here (Vrabel, Woods, Hobson, Mayo, Bruschi, Thomas, Crable, Guyton). Also keep in mind that Tank Williams has been lining up at ILB. I believe Izzo is in a battle for a roster spot but with Aiken not any of the other LB's. Aiken has played Izzo's protector role on punt team in practice and those two are battling it out for a ST position because the two are obviously strictly ST guys so they can't be looked at as a LB or WR. So in terms of last yrs roster the LB # could be down 2 to on opening day. So we can't look at it with past rosters in mind, rather we have to focus on this yr and what role each player will play-whether that be on offense, defense and/or special teams. Bottom line, the best 53 will make it and I believe that Jordan will end up being one of those, because eventhough he will not be playing ST's he can and should fill many roles in this team-so he brings value.

You think Guyton is a definite over Alexander?