TEs vs. RBs

Just a thought from Mike Reiss' ESPN mailbag:

Q. Mike, in Gronk's absence, do you think the Pats will keep all four TEs, using Michael Hoomanawanui as the FB? Is Tim Tebow eligible for the practice squad? -- Greg (Exeter, N.H.)

A. Greg, I don't see four tight ends on the roster, in part because if there are five running backs, the tight end spot projects are an area to trim, from this viewpoint. I think Jake Ballard and rookie Zach Sudfeld are the top two after Gronkowski, and then it's Daniel Fells and Hoomanawanui battling for a third spot (if Gronkowski starts on the reserve/physically unable to perform list).

Click to expand...

I dunno, but I find it hard to believe the Pats would keep 5 RBs and only 3 TEs, especially since the latter help make the former more effective.

I don't...and I've been seeing this exact take since the start of camp...Hooman is the cut IMO

Joker said:

I don't...and I've been seeing this exact take since the start of camp...Hooman is the cut IMO

Click to expand...

Who will line up at fullback on the rare occasion there is one?

uh...no one?...use an H back? who lined up as a fullback last season?..we had one in camp but he was cut...that's all I remember...

ctpatsfan77 said:

Just a thought from Mike Reiss' ESPN mailbag:



I dunno, but I find it hard to believe the Pats would keep 5 RBs and only 3 TEs, especially since the latter help make the former more effective.

Click to expand...

Reiss' first mistake is his assumption that there will definitely be 5 RB's, so he then bases his whole opinion on that.

I don't think the 2 are absolute in comparison to another, although one would think that it's either one or the other:

1) 4 TE's vs. 5 RB's

2) Tebow is cut, and they keep the following--

2 QB
6 WR
5 RB
4 TE
8 OL

25 in total


In other words, Reiss' opinion seems to be based off of 2 things. They keep 5 RB's and they also keep Tebow too.

I think it depends on how long Gronk is going to be out. If its six weeks, I say keep 3 TEs. Anything beyond 6 (which is doubtful) keep 4.

Elijah said:

Who will line up at fullback on the rare occasion there is one?

Click to expand...

Blount.....

nashvillepatsfan said:

Blount.....

Click to expand...

Is an awful blocker and receiver

mcmurtry86 said:

Is an awful blocker and receiver

Click to expand...

...and not even as tough a 3rd-and-1 plowhorse as his build would suggest.

So far in preseason, they've handed the ball to Develin to pick up that last yard. Is that meaningful? Who among the RBs would you trust to move the pile?

Interestingly, the issue of FB isn't as relevant as you think. Almost everyone has Hooman as being cut, so we wouldn't have a TE/FB in almost all our rosters.

The answer to your question is that an OG would fill that position.

Elijah said:

Who will line up at fullback on the rare occasion there is one?

Click to expand...

4 TE
5 RB

I think either Hooman or Fells gets cut.

If the Pats are going to continue running out plenty of 2- and 3-TE sets, having only 3 TEs would be to have virtually no depth at the position. I would speculate Hooman sticks until Gronk is back.

I'm really not sure what combination of Hooman/Develin/Blount/Bolden/Washington make the roster. (Should probably throw TT in there too.) I would guess all but 1 or 2 of them pre-Gronk.

1) If Gronk is on the PUP (out for 6 games), then how many TE's do we need?

2) If Gronk is on the 53 (out for 4-6 games), then how many additional TE's do we need?

I submit that whether Gronk is on the roster or not, we need the same number of additional TE's for the 1st 6-8 weeks. If that number is FOUR, then we might be carrying FIVE on the 53 man roster.

I think that we will have Gronk plus three, with Hooman out. Hooman could make it as a RB, which is the reason for considering the RB number.

4: Gronk doesn't go to PUP, Hooman gets cut.

No offense to Reiss, but anyone who projects 5 RBs and 3 TEs has abandoned all logic in roster building, considering how extensively the Pats run a 2TE, 1RB offense. I could almost come around to it if there was way more depth at RB than at TE, but there isn't.

mgteich said:

1) If Gronk is on the PUP (out for 6 games), then how many TE's do we need?

2) If Gronk is on the 53 (out for 4-6 games), then how many additional TE's do we need?

I submit that whether Gronk is on the roster or not, we need the same number of additional TE's for the 1st 6-8 weeks. If that number is FOUR, then we might be carrying FIVE on the 53 man roster.

I think that we will have Gronk plus three, with Hooman out. Hooman could make it as a RB, which is the reason for considering the RB number.

Click to expand...

My problem is that Reiss is thinking GRONK + 2 is a plausible scenario in Week 1, which doesn't seem at all likely to me.

nashvillepatsfan said:

Blount.....

Click to expand...

However big he is, Blount is most definitely not a fullback. I trust Vereen on 3rd and 1 more than I trust Blount. Probably goes without saying that I'd also rather see Ridley or Bolden get it over Blount.

For whatever reason, Blount is a 250 pound RB who happens to have the skill-set of a 210 pound RB.

ctpatsfan77 said:

My problem is that Reiss is thinking GRONK + 2 is a plausible scenario in Week 1, which doesn't seem at all likely to me.

Click to expand...

Me either. Sudfeld sprains his ankle and suddenly you can't run half the plays in your playbook.

Hooman and Fells eventually cut

Yes, that is why I wanted to focus on how many TE's in addition to Gronk. I believe that number doesn't change depending on whether Gronk goes on the PUP list.

The question should exclude Gronk, who is not likely to be 100% until at least the 6th game.

If this were done, my answer is THREE. Many here would keeps all 4 if Gronk goes on the PUP list. I don't understand the logic of the difference.

And yes, I reject that idea that TWO TE's for a month or more is not acceptable.
================================================

The closer we get, the more likely I think that Gronk will be on the PUP list. It seems that putting him on the 53 MIGHT gain us a game or two, and maybe none at all. After all, the PUP list has a player out for 6 weeks.

ctpatsfan77 said:

My problem is that Reiss is thinking GRONK + 2 is a plausible scenario in Week 1, which doesn't seem at all likely to me.

Click to expand...

If Develin makes the team as a FB, a healthy Gronk, Ballard and Sudfeld would suffice. Fells and/or Hooman probably won't be big factors as pass catchers.