Having Enough Depth, Being Prepared For 2 Injuries Per Unit

IMHO, we do not need to plan what to do when we lose 4 WR's with injuries, at the same time as losing our TE's and primary RB receiver. Josh was a miracle man last year, as were the defensive coaches who lost so many starters and yet were #10 in points scored.
=================

I believe that a 44 man roster gives us the ability to play at a reasonable level with enough backups to absorb at least one, perhaps two injuries in every unit (except for special teams).

As an example, for me, the reality is that the #5 WR will (and should) get almost ZERO reps unless there are two injuries. Perhaps, if he is a kick returner and therefore active, he MIGHT get a couple of reps a game. I wouldn't expect more than 4 WR's to be active in most games. Even with 2 injuries, the #8 and #9 OL's may not see action. We COULD carry 10 defensive linemen. Only 7 are likely to get a significant number of reps.

After the 44, there is a great degree of latitude with regard to using the last nine roster spots.

OFFENSE (19)
QB (2)
WR (4)
RB (3)
FB (1)
OL (7)
TE (2)

DEFENSE (20)
DE (3)
DT (3)
DE/DT (1)
LB (5)
CB (5)
S (3)

SPECIALISTS AND SPECIAL TEAMS (5)
K (1)
P (1)
LS (1)
ST (2) perhaps Slater and a kick returner

THE LAST NINE - POSSIBILITIES
A) Developmental players, especially top draft choices
B) Special teamers
C) Additional positional backups in case of injuries

My point is that unless there is more than one injury within one of the units, the last NINE players would likely get significant reps only on special teams.
====

Note that the above 44 allows for injuries and sub packages. Let's look at the defense.

On the line, we have 2 DE's and a backup. We have 2 DT's and a backup. Plus we have a sub-package specialist.

We only use 2-3 linebackers. Two backups, including a sub-package player is sufficient. No more than these 5 will get 99% of the reps. How many reps did Beauharnais or Chris White get last year? When we had 2 injuries, Collins and Fletcher got the reps (our #4 and #5 LB). The rest played not at all.

At corner, I have 5 corners. We need 2 starters, a nickel back and 2 backups.

At safety, we need 2 safeties plus a backup.

mgteich said:

IMHO, we do not need to plan what to do when we lose 4 WR's with injuries, at the same time as losing our TE's and primary RB receiver. Josh was a miracle man last year, as were the defensive coaches who lost so many starters and yet were #10 in points scored.
=================

I believe that a 44 man roster gives us the ability to play at a reasonable level with enough backups to absorb at least one, perhaps two injuries in every unit (except for special teams).

As an example, for me, the reality is that the #5 WR will (and should) get almost ZERO reps unless there are two injuries. Perhaps, if he is a kick returner and therefore active, he MIGHT get a couple of reps a game. I wouldn't expect more than 4 WR's to be active in most games. Even with 2 injuries, the #8 and #9 OL's may not see action. We COULD carry 10 defensive linemen. Only 7 are likely to get a significant number of reps.

After the 44, there is a great degree of latitude with regard to using the last nine roster spots.

OFFENSE (19)
QB (2)
WR (4)
RB (3)
FB (1)
OL (7)
TE (2)

DEFENSE (20)
DE (3)
DT (3)
DE/DT (1)
LB (5)
CB (5)
S (3)

SPECIALISTS AND SPECIAL TEAMS (5)
K (1)
P (1)
LS (1)
ST (2) perhaps Slater and a kick returner

THE LAST NINE - POSSIBILITIES
A) Developmental players, especially top draft choices
B) Special teamers
C) Additional positional backups in case of injuries

My point is that unless there is more than one injury within one of the units, the last NINE players would likely get significant reps only on special teams.
====

Note that the above 44 allows for injuries and sub packages. Let's look at the defense.

On the line, we have 2 DE's and a backup. We have 2 DT's and a backup. Plus we have a sub-package specialist.

We only use 2-3 linebackers. Two backups, including a sub-package player is sufficient. No more than these 5 will get 99% of the reps. How many reps did Beauharnais or Chris White get last year? When we had 2 injuries, Collins and Fletcher got the reps (our #4 and #5 LB). The rest played not at all.

At corner, I have 5 corners. We need 2 starters, a nickel back and 2 backups.

At safety, we need 2 safeties plus a backup.

Click to expand...

Good post, good perspective.
I would disagree with 5/3 at corner/safety and think it is 5/4.
The 5th corner would not play unless there were 2 injuries, as would the 4th safety.

I have always thought that the core defense was 4 corners and 3 safeties. Now with the passing game, we need a additional defensive back who we can count on. I would think that if there are two injuries at safety, one of the 5 corners would move to safety.

I start with a 44 man roster. I think that there is strong argument for Player 45 to be a safety. An 8th offensive lineman would be my Player 46.

I would also note that the players in the 45 wouldn't all be active, since we would likely have 2-3 more special teamers. I would also note that we could lose the FB/HB and add a RB or TE to fill that role.

But it seems that after 46, we don't NEED the roster positions. All seven can be used to meet our wants with regard to special teams, player development and additional position protection.

AndyJohnson said:

Good post, good perspective.
I would disagree with 5/3 at corner/safety and think it is 5/4.
The 5th corner would not play unless there were 2 injuries, as would the 4th safety.

Click to expand...

If you're only preparing for 2 injuries at WR with this group, you're not doing your job.

How would you fill the last 6 positions and why. Or, does it really depend (for all 6) what happens in camp and the preseason with regard to production and health. I suspect that this is indeed the case.

CHANGED A BIT AFTER INPUT AND RECONSIDERATION - A 47 MAN ROSTER

After the 47, there is a great degree of latitude with regard to using the last SIX roster spots.

OFFENSE (20)
QB (2)
WR (4)
RB (3)
FB (1)
OL (8)
TE (2)

DEFENSE (22)
DE (3)
DT (3)
DE/DT (2)
LB (5)
CB (5)
S (4)

SPECIALISTS AND SPECIAL TEAMS (5)
K (1)
P (1)
LS (1)
ST (2) perhaps Slater and a kick returner (probably Boyce at this point)

THE LAST SIX - POSSIBILITIES
A) Developmental players, especially top draft choices
B) Special teamers
C) Additional positional backups in case of injuries

I think it's also worth looking at this from the perspective of a team with no injuries trying to maximize performance. Fresh players are effective players, and aside from the rare superstar, players are better at different things from one another. Let's consider a 46-man game-day roster and how many players see the field.

The most obvious place to start is DL. It's fairly well established that DT are more effective when they can rotate in and out during a game. Guys like Wilfork will get the most reps, because he is that rare superstar who can dominate on any play, but he is more likely to do that if he gets a series off every now and again. DE would get less rotation, but preferably, there would be more than last year.

Defense
DT (4)
DE (3)
LB (3-4) - 3 in the base, 2 in sub with a rotational player who may or may not play in the base.
CB/S (4/2) - Or 3/3, depending on who you call what in the dime.
DTot (16 or 17)

Offense
QB (1)
OL (5)
RB (2 rotating ball carriers)
HB (1-2) - scatback, receiving back, sometimes runner, Tom's personal protector
FB (0-1)
TE (2-3) - Probably 3 FB and TE combined most games.
WR (4) - They'll all get reps, too. Amendola, Dobson, LaFell, and Edelman will all see the field most games.
OTot (typ. 17)

Special Teams (minimum players who don't figure in positional play)
K (1)
P (1)
LS (1)
STTot (3)

Backups you can't live without (now we start considering injuries)
DL (1) - This is already a deep position, but there needs to be a backup there.
LB (1)
DB (1-2)
QB (1)
OL (2)
RB/FB/HB (0-1 - this is already a deep position)
TE (0-1) - If we're running 3TEs sometimes, this guy will already be on the gameday roster
WR (1)
Total Backups (7-9)

That's 43-45 players in common game plans, not counting ST-only players, but typically, we'd have room for 2 ST-only players. Most backups, of course, will be regular STers. That's the crux of the decisions regarding back end of the roster: how well do the backup offensive and defensive players contribute on ST, and how well do the best STers perform when they get reps on offense or defense? If your best STer is Slater, that leaves one ST-only slot. However, if Boyce is the best returner, he might double-up as the backup WR and be serviceable.

The remaining 7 roster spots are additional depth, developmental players, and guys too dinged-up to play for a week or three. How much depth we need, versus how many developmental players we can stash (few) is something that gets determined after we figure out who fills the active roster, and is likely based on questions like, how many healthy ACLs do we have on the DL and can our WR and DB make it through Week 1 intact?

I concur from the classic definition of a backup. But it does not always apply in BB situations.

Unlike other coaches who insist on 'complete' players even if they in fact are not, BB views and acts differently. If he lacks a complete player in a position but has two 'incomplete' players who excel in mutually opposite abilities, he will try to use them in different situations, emphasizing what they do well. It is termed situational substitution.

That is why he is a 'game planner' and even a 'series planner'. I'm sure he would prefer to use it on a per play situation too, but it is tougher to do today, with no huddle and hurry up Offenses.

Sometimes that explains the 'inexplicable' player retention questions too. Sometimes he needs a pair ot produce a single competent "player".

Deus Irae said:

If you're only preparing for 2 injuries at WR with this group, you're not doing your job.

Click to expand...

I Agree, although I'll be slightly more PC about it. Slot receivers are small guys that take a lot of hits and therefore it's an injurty-prone position. In other words, plan on Edelman and Amendola to miss significant time. Dobson is coming off a major injury so who knows if he'll be fully recovered any time soon.

I'll hope for the best but I'm not opptimistic.

If the season started tomorrow this would be my projected game day 46-man depth chart.

QB-Brady-Mallett
RB-Ridley-Bolden-White
3rd down RB-Vereen-White
FB-Develin-Hoomanawanui
X WR-Dobson-LaFell-Boyce/Thompkins
Z WR-Edelman-LaFell-Boyce/Thompkins
H WR-Amendola-Edelman-LaFell
TE-Gronkowski-Hoomanawanui-Auffray/Jones
Flex TE-Williams/Watson-LaFell
LT-Solder -Vollmer-Cannon
LG-Mankins-Connolly-Stork
OC-Connolly-Stork-Stork
RG-Cannon-Connolly-Stork
RT-Vollmer-Cannon-Fleming
LE-Ninkovich-Buchanan-Smith/Moore
DT-Kelly-Easley-Armstead
NT-Wilfork-Kelly
RE-Jones-Ninkovich-Buchanan
SLB-Hightower-Ninkovich-Collins
MLB-Mayo-Hightower-Anderson
WLB-Collins-Mayo-Anderson
LCB-Revis-Browner-Dennard
RCB-Browner-Dennard-Arrington
SAF-Ryan-Harmon-Wilson/Chung
SAF-McCourty-Harmon-Wilson/Chung
K-Gostkowski-Allen
P-Allen-Gostkowski
LS-Aiken-Ninkovich

I like Watson to beat out Williams, Moore to beat out Smith, and Wilson to beat out Chung. I think that both Boyce and Thompkins will make the 53-man roster but only one of them will be on the game day roster. I am undecided on the Auffray/Jones battle.

Deus Irae said:

If you're only preparing for 2 injuries at WR with this group, you're not doing your job.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we should carry 8 WR's since 4 were injured last.
Seriously, have many position WR's do you think that we should carry?

I think most people are answering 6 because they want to keep Thompkins or Gallen, and they ignore the Practice Squad.

mgteich said:

Perhaps we should carry 8 WR's since 4 were injured last.
Seriously, have many WR's do you think that we should carry?

Click to expand...

Well, part of the issue is you playing roster games. Putting Boyce as a STer only seems to have skewed your mind on this topic. However, planning for more than 2 injuries from this group, when 2 of your top 3-4 get injured almost every year (2 complete seasons out of a possible 10, combined, for Edelman/Amendola), is common sense. Both Thompkins and Dobson got injured and missed several games as well last season, making the idea even more obvious.

Deus Irae said:

Well, part of the issue is you playing roster games. Putting Boyce as a STer only seems to have skewed your mind on this topic. However, planning for more than 2 injuries from this group, when 2 of your top 3-4 get injured almost every year (2 complete seasons out of a possible 10, combined, for Edelman/Amendola), is common sense. Both Thompkins and Dobson got injured and missed several games as well last season, making the idea even more obvious.

Click to expand...

I thought that asking you how many wide receivers that you will carry seemed, and seems, a reasonable question.

My answer was 5 in the core 47 man roster (including our PR and KR). I made no statements on how to use the last 6 positions. I could see Belichick using one of the 6 positions for an additional receiver (perhaps instead of a 3rd TE), although I personally doubt that this will happen.

You were wildly critical of my position. I only ask that you state your own.

mgteich said:

I thought that asking you how many wide receivers that you will carry seemed, and seems, a reasonable question.

Click to expand...

Sure, it would be a reasonable, albeit stacked and incomplete, question if you weren't manipulating the roster with Boyce, but it's meaningless when you're carrying legit WRs (as opposed to the Matthew Slaters of the world) as ST only. You're saying "A", but you're acting "B". I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty damned sure that Belichick is not going with 4 WRs on his roster.

mgteich said:

My answer was 5 in the core 47 man roster (including our PR and KR). I made no statements on how to use the last 6 positions. I could see Belichick using one of the 6 positions for an additional receiver (perhaps instead of a 3rd TE), although I personally doubt that this will happen.

You were wildly critical of my position. I only ask that you state your own.

Click to expand...

I was critical of the idea of only preparing for 2 WR injuries in light of the recent past. I stand by that. It would be horrible planning, to put it mildly.

I didn't make any 1:1 equation with personnel numbers. As a "What the hell. Why not?" exercise in it's own thread, such an equation is fine. As a serious response right now, when we haven't even really begun to see the current roster and/or any new systemic approaches, that's a complete waste of even an internet poster's time. In theory, the plan could include a move of Vereen to WR, for example. And the 47 positions thing means nothing when we're looking at a 53 man roster. I do currently expect that they'll have at least 6 WRs available for the roster, barring preseason injury, either because they immediately go with 6 WRs or because they've got a clear target for the call ups (practice squad or 'shadow roster'), but exactly how that gets shaken out depends upon too many variables (how many QBs, WR/TE/RB injuries, etc...) to pin down exactly, and the number will be fluid out of necessity.

OK, so your only objection is semantics. If I had included 5 WR's and said that we would then be able to handle a 3rd injury, you'd be fine. OK!

Deus Irae said:

Sure, it would be a reasonable, albeit stacked and incomplete, question if you weren't manipulating the roster with Boyce, but it's meaningless when you're carrying legit WRs (as opposed to the Matthew Slaters of the world) as ST only. You're saying "A", but you're acting "B". I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty damned sure that Belichick is not going with 4 WRs on his roster.



I was critical of the idea of only preparing for 2 WR injuries in light of the recent past. I stand by that. It would be horrible planning, to put it mildly.

I didn't make any 1:1 equation with personnel numbers. As a "What the hell. Why not?" exercise in it's own thread, such an equation is fine. As a serious response right now, when we haven't even really begun to see the current roster and/or any new systemic approaches, that's a complete waste of even an internet poster's time. In theory, the plan could include a move of Vereen to WR, for example. And the 47 positions thing means nothing when we're looking at a 53 man roster. I do currently expect that they'll have at least 6 WRs available for the roster, barring preseason injury, either because they immediately go with 6 WRs or because they've got a clear target for the call ups (practice squad or 'shadow roster'), but exactly how that gets shaken out depends upon too many variables (how many QBs, WR/TE/RB injuries, etc...) to pin down exactly, and the number will be fluid out of necessity.

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

OK, so your only objection is semantics. If I had included 5 WR's and said that we would then be able to handle a 3rd injury, you'd be fine. OK!

Click to expand...

I don't expect any 5th WR to be looked at as a STer only. I don't rule out a 6th WR on the roster as an option, either. I pointed out the option of specifically shifting other players into the WR spot as one potential plan, and gave an example of a player who could be moved. That's not just semantics.

None of that is just semantics. It's a significant difference in approach.

C'mon now. Let's just acknowledge that it's too soon to be seriously expecting specific numbers at questioned positions and accept that I take (or at least took in the two threads) the idea of planning for multiple injury at WR more seriously than you did.

fair enough

I would note that a 47 man roster specifically does NOT suggest specific final roster numbers by position, but rather focuses us on a discussion with regard to how to use the last 6 positions, as well as discussions of the first 47.

Deus Irae said:

C'mon now. Let's just acknowledge that it's too soon to be seriously expecting specific numbers at questioned positions and accept that I take (or at least took in the two threads) the idea of planning for multiple injury at WR more seriously than you did.

Click to expand...