Pats Sign LB James Anderson and .......well There Goes My Mark Harrison @ TE Theory......

Marqui said:

That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. How can he lead the team in tackles but "struggled against the run"?

Click to expand...

They were ranked 32 against the run. A player can get a lot of tackles and be bad against the run. Tackles includes receivers and TEs and pass-catching RBs. The team was thin at LB, so some mix of LBs will get the tackles. It ended up being him. Usually LBs who are bad against the run don't rack up tackles, because the coaches have other options at the position. But all they had were developing LBs.

patriot lifer said:

Why was this guy unsigned until now? If he's decent, I'm surprised he lasted this long. Given the timing of the signing, I'd think he were a JAG, if not for the PY stats.

Click to expand...

It's definitely a happy surprise. While I wouldn't expect a player like Anderson to be a priority target, he's a better quality player than I would have expected to find available for vet minimum in June. Has a reputation as a super-hard worker and high character guy, too.

I took a look around some Bears forums to see if they knew more. The general impression I get is that Anderson was productive but decidedly upgradeable as a starter (and no longer super speedy), but got more blame than he deserved because he was cleaning up messes left by a porous DL. Most Bears fans seem surprised that he wasn't kept around as depth: http://chicagobearboards.com/node/2126

"Productive but decidedly upgradeable starter" = Awesome vet-minimum backup, I'd think.

Veteran minimum deal, according to Reiss.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-.../_/id/4763737/breaking-down-lb-andersons-deal
No risk. Some potential upside.
It appears he could be put in a better position than he was in the Bears' system: coverage linebacker.
The analysis above says he got some sacks, has some speed, good tackler, not great against the run.
Maybe Phifer is hoping way too high, but someone who can play in coverage packages, contribute on ST - big addition.
Love it.

Just have a hard time thinking that a guy in his last 4 seasons

450 Tackles
9 Sacks
3 INT
19 PD
30 Stuffs

Would have a difficult time landing as either the 4th or 5th LB on the roster with the likes of Chris White, Josh Hull, Darius Fleming, and Steve Beauharnais as competition.

patchick said:

It's definitely a happy surprise. While I wouldn't expect a player like Anderson to be a priority target, he's a better quality player than I would have expected to find available for vet minimum in June. Has a reputation as a super-hard worker and high character guy, too.

I took a look around some Bears forums to see if they knew more. The general impression I get is that Anderson was productive but decidedly upgradeable as a starter (and no longer super speedy), but got more blame than he deserved because he was cleaning up messes left by a porous DL. Most Bears fans seem surprised that he wasn't kept around as depth: http://chicagobearboards.com/node/2126

"Productive but decidedly upgradeable starter" = Awesome vet-minimum backup, I'd think.

Click to expand...

That's fair. If he is good enough as a coverage LB and can play ST, then he could have a role with the team. I don't think BB looks at a given position as needing to hit a target quota of players for the 53. Some positions are deeper or thinner than others. I hope he works out.

He will be a good addition. We sure could have used him last year. I'm mystified by the folks who see him as an upgrade over Mayo in pass coverage (especially as he doesn't know the system yet), but he will make for a good addition to a 3-3-5 nickel and I'll feel comfortable when he is out there for a few series a game, particularly against a team that runs the hurry-up. It sure is better than having Hightower or Beauharnais in at LB, if Collins or Mayo get dinged up for a play or when a team goes hurry-up and starts throwing the ball around.

Also meant to mention: Anderson is a quality special teams player, which makes him very easy to carry on the weekly 45.

patchick said:

Also meant to mention: Anderson is a quality special teams player, which makes him very easy to carry on the weekly 45.

Click to expand...

That could be the problem for Steve Beauharnais vs White or Hull.

KontradictioN said:

Not sure about that. I'm being told in another thread that our depth at TE behind Gronk is absolutely fine.

Click to expand...

Now that's another untruth Kontra. I never said our TE position was "fine". My comment was based on your assertion that "it was the worst in the NFL". Stop being so thin skinned

For most of the time Belichick has coached the Pats, he hasn't had as good a TE corps as he does today, even without another addition. Do you really want to compare Gronk versus Graham or Watson or Crumpler?

Hoomanawanui is a typical inline, reserve, blocking TE, and he is competent at it. Surprisingly he even has good hands and can be used on the goal line, like Vrabel. He just possesses little speed or separation ability to get open. If Belichick doesn't have a second superior TE, he just won't call such plays, especially since his rebuilt WR corps is just entering their productive years.

patfanken said:

Now that's another untruth Kontra. I never said our TE position was "fine". My comment was based on your assertion that "it was the worst in the NFL". Stop being so thin skinned

Click to expand...

When you defend the depth, that's usually an indicator that you're fine with it. Calling me thin skinned is a logical fallacy. The truth is that the depth behind Gronk is seriously lacking and one could easily make a case that it's among the worst in the NFL at the TE position. Again, the team recently took a look at Finley and there seems to be some reported interest in Keller. The team, as it seems, would agree with me.

OK, so:
Mayo, Hightower, Collins, Anderson.

Who plays where?
1st down?
Passing situation?

Mayo, Hightower, and Anderson all are "LB's" - not specific WLB/MLB/SLB types.

patriot lifer said:

They were ranked 32 against the run. A player can get a lot of tackles and be bad against the run. Tackles includes receivers and TEs and pass-catching RBs. The team was thin at LB, so some mix of LBs will get the tackles. It ended up being him. Usually LBs who are bad against the run don't rack up tackles, because the coaches have other options at the position. But all they had were developing LBs.

Click to expand...

Two things you are ignoring in that analysis:

1) He played and started all 16 games
2) The other two veteran LB's were IRed early in the season and he had to take over D play calling while babysitting 2 rookie LB's.
3) He did all that in his first year after coming to a completely new system.

So, yes, we are in deep trouble if Mayo, Hightower and Collins all go down and he has to do that again with rookies.

Context is important.

shmessy said:

Two things you are ignoring in that analysis:

1) He played and started all 16 games
2) The other two veteran LB's were IRed early in the season and he had to take over D play calling while babysitting 2 rookie LB's.
3) He did all that in his first year after coming to a completely new system.

So, yes, we are in deep trouble if Mayo, Hightower and Collins all go down and he has to do that again with rookies.

Context is important.

Click to expand...

There was a post on a Bears board that I cited that said he was not good against the run. In response to that find, someone on this board stated that because he had a lot of tackles, that mustn't be true. I disagreed. A lot of tackles does not equal 'good against the run.' It could mean that there were no better options for the coaches.

Your points do not disagree with the notion that he may be bad against the run.

Two Asides
1. I'm actually a little interested in his pass rush. He had the 2nd most sacks on a team in which most opponents ran against them. Not that he's elite, but not a bad competency.

2. Regarding point #2 above, I saw Lance Briggs with 71 tackles (9 games).
Regarding #3, I think this is over-rated by fans.


But let's see him play first.

varjao said:

All this hype and expectation over Harrison taking some snaps reveals that our receiving corps is one of the worst in NFL an there are big question marks at WR. That's what makes people hope for anything that can become a playmaker.

Click to expand...

Funny, but I've never heard any of that from anyone here. People WERE speculating that Harrison might be an ingredient we were missing (bigger receiver or maybe even a "move" TE), but that's about it.

If Mister Anderson can prevent some of those 3rd/long screen passes from becoming 1st downs,
then he will already be worth his salary.

Shmessy: 3) He did all that in his first year after coming to a completely new system.

patriot lifer said:

Regarding #3, I think this is over-rated by fans.

Click to expand...

PL, he was CALLING THE DEFENSIVE PLAYS in his first year in a new system. That is remarkable - - no matter whether it is overrated by fans, it is definitely seen by someone like BB as a mark of leadership and a quick uptake.

Without all that responsibility, and as long as Mayo, Hightower and Collins don't all go down all at once for extended periods, this guy should be an effective cog. If he is pressed into being the center of the defense, then, yes, we are in trouble.

KontradictioN said:

When you defend the depth, that's usually an indicator that you're fine with it. Calling me thin skinned is a logical fallacy. The truth is that the depth behind Gronk is seriously lacking and one could easily make a case that it's among the worst in the NFL at the TE position. Again, the team recently took a look at Finley and there seems to be some reported interest in Keller. The team, as it seems, would agree with me.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with you more if the team was going to go with 4 TE's like they have been the last few years. However the "depth" gets better when you consider the possibility that the team goes with 6 true WR's (plus Slater) and only 3 TE's this season, and giving all those "move TE" routes to a WR like LaFell.

So now your TE position includes the best TE in the league, a solid blue collar back up in Hooman, and the winner of the #3 TE job from among Jones, Williams, and Watson. Even if the Pats decide to sign a Keller or Finely, they still could decide to go with only 3 TE's.

The point is I'm sure we'd all love to add a player like Finley or Keller (if healthy), and of course our TE depth would be better than if we go with Williams or a UDFA rookie. Its not like we can't fit them under the cap since neither would come at more than the vet minimum.

Where we disagree, is if for some reason the Pats don't sign the vet TE (probably due to health reasons) and stay with Gronk, Hooman, and the #3 TE winner from the rest. I'd be OK with that result, and you clearly aren't. If the Pat's brain trust feel the need for 4 TE's then we'd come more into agreement and more personnel work needs to be done, but the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we are going back to 3 TE's for this season.

BTW- I think you underestimate Hooman somewhat. He is a more than capable blocker, and decent if slower receiver with better than average hands. I know he's not any kind of "receiving TE", but if need be could be more effective if targeted more with routes suitable to his talents.

0

captain stone said:

If Mister Anderson can prevent some of those 3rd/long screen passes from becoming 1st downs,
then he will already be worth his salary.

Click to expand...