Tight end Shuffle: Hartsock, Maneri, Terrence Miller in; Jones, Watson, RB Houston out

Brady6 said:

I think it goes without question that behind Brady the most important player in our offense is Gronkowski. Well we prioritized having a good backup for Brady enough to use 2 top 75 draft picks on his backup in 4 years but we rely on a player we signed off another teams practice squad to backup Gronkowksi. This is the reality the second most important player in our offense does not have an adequate backup. We could have drafted a player, signed an UFA, or at least signed some more promising UDFAs.

Is it going to be the downfall of the team no but let's not sit here and pretend we did the best we could, because we didn't.

Click to expand...

Where to start.
The players you listed would not come here to back up Gronk. It just won't happen. Scott Chandler took that deal to be the man in Buffalo, but you think he would take it to come here and sit behind Gronk?
Or are you suggesting he is better than our 3rd WR? If so, where is the depth behind the 2 starting TEs?
Either Chandler wouldn't come here because he wouldn't play or we have no depth behind 2 starting TE positions in a 2 TE offense.

Gronk is great. Thinking we can have another Gronk sitting in the wings is silly.
We are talking about the guy who backs him up and won't play. Every team in the NFL is in the position that if their star goes down they can't replace them.

What you are asking for in FA is unrealistic. Most of those players stayed with their former team for the same role, which is exceedingly larger than they would have here, and others are competing to start. Owen Daniels is done by the way.

I guess we could have used a draft pick in the first or second round to make you feel better, but it wouldn't have made this team appreciably better.

AndyJohnson said:

Well if you are going to pretend reality isnt real, I don't know where to go.

Click to expand...

Which teams run a base 2TE offense? And where did you get your info from?

Armchair Quarterback said:

A) You have no idea if that is true, you're treating you're assumptions as fact
B) A blanket statement covering all available TE's
C) Not true, you could go back to a one TE base offense and still have a quality player, whereas now they don't.

Click to expand...

A) Common sense
B) But a correct one. Which TE could we have signed that you think would have change us to a 2 TE offense so they would want to come here and start? Who is better than our 3rd WR?
C) You don't seem to understand. If we become a 2 TE offense by signing another TE, we have the same backups as we have now, we just decided to put a better WR on the bench. However, we now have Hooman as the only backup to 2 positions, so our depth sucks twice in your view.

You can't just name guys and say we have them if we want them.
Do you not think that starting vs backing up the best TE in the NFL is a consideration?

Armchair Quarterback said:

Which teams run a base 2TE offense? And where did you get your info from?

Click to expand...

All of the ones with 2 good TEs.

AndyJohnson said:

Where to start.
The players you listed would not come here to back up Gronk. It just won't happen. Scott Chandler took that deal to be the man in Buffalo, but you think he would take it to come here and sit behind Gronk?
Or are you suggesting he is better than our 3rd WR? If so, where is the depth behind the 2 starting TEs?
Either Chandler wouldn't come here because he wouldn't play or we have no depth behind 2 starting TE positions in a 2 TE offense.

Gronk is great. Thinking we can have another Gronk sitting in the wings is silly.
We are talking about the guy who backs him up and won't play. Every team in the NFL is in the position that if their star goes down they can't replace them.

What you are asking for in FA is unrealistic. Most of those players stayed with their former team for the same role, which is exceedingly larger than they would have here, and others are competing to start. Owen Daniels is done by the way.

I guess we could have used a draft pick in the first or second round to make you feel better, but it wouldn't have made this team appreciably better.

Click to expand...

The Patriots even with Hooman (or whoever) will still line in a base 2TE offense on occasion, if they signed a FA that deserved to play they'd play it more often.

Armchair Quarterback said:

The Patriots even with Hooman (or whoever) will still line in a base 2TE offense on occasion, if they signed a FA that deserved to play they'd play it more often.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The base offense is 3 wr 1 TE.
You cannot attract a good backup TE into that system when he would be backing up the best TE in the league. What self-respecting TE would go to a team he would be sitting on the bench for when he can go to one where he will play?
Please tell me which players we could have signed that would have made us change the 1 TE offense, and which of them would have been willing to come here.
Keep in mind that if we add your ficiticous signing we still have 2 spots backed up by Hooman.
By the way, you don't have a 'base on occasion' offense.

AndyJohnson said:

All of the ones with 2 good TEs.

Click to expand...

Specifically which teams? Because otherwise you'll claim every team with a decent backup is a 2 TE offense.

Armchair Quarterback said:

Specifically which teams? Because otherwise you'll claim every team with a decent backup is a 2 TE offense.

Click to expand...

This is pointless, because we disagree to the point you think JAGS who caught 4 passes in the last 2 years are good TEs.
By your definition every team in the NFL except the Patriots have outstanding backup TEs. By mine there are a handful at best.

When we had a legitimate TE2 didn't we play a lot more 2 TE formations?

AndyJohnson said:

I disagree. The base offense is 3 wr 1 TE.
You cannot attract a good backup TE into that system when he would be backing up the best TE in the league. What self-respecting TE would go to a team he would be sitting on the bench for when he can go to one where he will play?
Please tell me which players we could have signed that would have made us change the 1 TE offense, and which of them would have been willing to come here.
Keep in mind that if we add your ficiticous signing we still have 2 spots backed up by Hooman.
By the way, you don't have a 'base on occasion' offense.

Click to expand...

In 2012, the last season with Hernandez and Gronk they ran the 3WR 1TE offense almost the exact amount of times they ran the 2TE 2WR offense (567-531). In 2013 up until Gronk's injury the ran out of a 3 WR, 1TE set 449 times and A 2TE, 2WR set 215 times. That's with Hooman and Mulligan as the only backups and with Gronk missing the first 6 games.

Replacing Rob Gronkowski: Can the New England Patriots piece together an offense for a playoff run? | masslive.com - Dec 9, 2013

1) Many posters would feel more comfortable if we drafted someone as Gronk's backup. The fact that Belichick probably doesn't think that any were better than Hooman doesn't seem to matter.

2) Posters celebrated the signing of the UDFA tight ends. They were the answer. When the players proved to be UDFA quality players, then it there was some other mythical UDFA who could start for us if necessary. IMHO, Belichick judged that none of the UDFA's were better than Hooman, or even close to being able to being even his injury replacement.

3) Posters mix up the need for a backup for Gronk with the advisability of spending resources on a move TE. Many would prefer that we had a move TE as an integral part of the defense. It seems that Belichick would rather use 3 WR's or 2 RB sets than spend the resources on the mythical players. If Williams were healthy, he would fill the role of the move TE, at a reasonable cost for the 8th receiving threat in our offense.

FREE AGENT BACKUP
4) Here I somewhat agree with the mob. I agree with you that none of the potential starters would or should have signed as the backup to Gronk. Also, I can understand that Belichick may think that none truly available for that role was better than Hooman. However, someone might have been signed to compete with Hooman, or as insurance in case of injury to either Gronk or Hooman. I think it somewhat disingenuous to suggest that were no players available who could provide insurance against an injury to Gronk or Hooman. Surely, someone was worth a $100K bonus as injury insurance. Let's be clear. I am talking about a JAG, a Mulligan type who would have had the benefit of camp to learn our system.

BOTTOM LINE
I might have been wrongly felt a bit better if we drafted a TE. Belichick seems to have evaluated the draft rather well with regard to the TE position.

However, I simply don't understand playing through camp and the preseason with a bunch of UDFA's instead of JAG vets, For me, this is not usually Belichick's style. I understand that many posters believe that UDFA's could easily replace Gronk. Somehow, I think that Belichick knew better.

AndyJohnson said:

Where to start.
The players you listed would not come here to back up Gronk. It just won't happen. Scott Chandler took that deal to be the man in Buffalo, but you think he would take it to come here and sit behind Gronk?
Or are you suggesting he is better than our 3rd WR? If so, where is the depth behind the 2 starting TEs?
Either Chandler wouldn't come here because he wouldn't play or we have no depth behind 2 starting TE positions in a 2 TE offense.

Gronk is great. Thinking we can have another Gronk sitting in the wings is silly.
We are talking about the guy who backs him up and won't play. Every team in the NFL is in the position that if their star goes down they can't replace them.

What you are asking for in FA is unrealistic. Most of those players stayed with their former team for the same role, which is exceedingly larger than they would have here, and others are competing to start. Owen Daniels is done by the way.

I guess we could have used a draft pick in the first or second round to make you feel better, but it wouldn't have made this team appreciably better.

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

1) Many posters would feel more comfortable if we drafted someone as Gronk's backup. The fact that Belichick probably doesn't think that any were better than Hooman doesn't seem to matter.

2) Posters celebrated the signing of the UDFA tight ends. They were the answer. When the players proved to be UDFA quality players, then it there was some other mythical UDFA who could start for us if necessary. IMHO, Belichick judged that none of the UDFA's were better than Hooman, or even close to being able to being even his injury replacement.

3) Posters mix up the need for a backup for Gronk with the advisability of spending resources on a move TE. Many would prefer that we had a move TE as an integral part of the defense. It seems that Belichick would rather use 3 WR's or 2 RB sets than spend the resources on the mythical players. If Williams were healthy, he would fill the role of the move TE, at a reasonable cost for the 8th receiving threat in our offense.

FREE AGENT BACKUP
4) Here I somewhat agree with the mob. I agree with you that none of the potential starters would or should have signed as the backup to Gronk. Also, I can understand that Belichick may think that none truly available for that role was better than Hooman. However, someone might have been signed to compete with Hooman, or as insurance in case of injury to either Gronk or Hooman. I think it somewhat disingenuous to suggest that were no players available who could provide insurance against an injury to Gronk or Hooman. Surely, someone was worth a $100K bonus as injury insurance. Let's be clear. I am talking about a JAG, a Mulligan type who would have had the benefit of camp to learn our system.

BOTTOM LINE
I might have been wrongly felt a bit better if we drafted a TE. Belichick seems to have evaluated the draft rather well with regard to the TE position.

However, I simply don't understand playing through camp and the preseason with a bunch of UDFA's instead of JAG vets, For me, this is not usually Belichick's style. I understand that many posters believe that UDFA's could easily replace Gronk. Somehow, I think that Belichick knew better.

Click to expand...

I guess we could have signed a couple of Hooman equals but I don't think thats where the discussion was going. I also believe that the 3rd TE would not end up being a Hooman equal, but a strtictly blocking only TE.
In the end I don't see who we could have brought in that would have been appreciably better than Hooman. I'm not saying Hooman is anything more than a JAG, but I don't see how we could have attracted any more than a JAG to a competition to sit behind Gronk.

Armchair Quarterback said:

In 2012, the last season with Hernandez and Gronk they ran the 3WR 1TE offense almost the exact amount of times they ran the 2TE 2WR offense (567-531). In 2013 up until Gronk's injury the ran out of a 3 WR, 1TE set 449 times and A 2TE, 2WR set 215 times. That's with Hooman and Mulligan as the only backups and with Gronk missing the first 6 games.

http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2013/12/replacing_rob_gronkowski.html

Click to expand...

You mean 2012 when Gronk and Hernandez were almost never available together?
You just showed that even without an offseason to prepare for it (Hernandez happened in the spring) that they cut the use of the second TE more than in half. It will be cut even further this year.

The Seahawks won the Super Bowl last year with 1 average TE and 1 below average TE. This board is obsessed with running the 2 TE offense.

AndyJohnson said:

This is pointless, because we disagree to the point you think JAGS who caught 4 passes in the last 2 years are good TEs.
By your definition every team in the NFL except the Patriots have outstanding backup TEs. By mine there are a handful at best.

Click to expand...

But you're not saying which teams either run a 2TE offense or have a good backup, you're just exaggerating my position and speaking in generalities.

Mack Herron said:

When we had a legitimate TE2 didn't we play a lot more 2 TE formations?

Click to expand...

NO. When we had 2 starting, probowl caliber TEs we played 2 TE more.
Who do you think we could have signed to replace what Hernandez was?

AndyJohnson said:

You mean 2012 when Gronk and Hernandez were almost never available together?
You just showed that even without an offseason to prepare for it (Hernandez happened in the spring) that they cut the use of the second TE more than in half. It will be cut even further this year.

Click to expand...

You disagreed that they would use it at all this year, when I said they would still use it on occasion.

AndyJohnson said:

Where to start.
The players you listed would not come here to back up Gronk. It just won't happen. Scott Chandler took that deal to be the man in Buffalo, but you think he would take it to come here and sit behind Gronk?
Or are you suggesting he is better than our 3rd WR? If so, where is the depth behind the 2 starting TEs?
Either Chandler wouldn't come here because he wouldn't play or we have no depth behind 2 starting TE positions in a 2 TE offense.

Gronk is great. Thinking we can have another Gronk sitting in the wings is silly.
We are talking about the guy who backs him up and won't play. Every team in the NFL is in the position that if their star goes down they can't replace them.

What you are asking for in FA is unrealistic. Most of those players stayed with their former team for the same role, which is exceedingly larger than they would have here, and others are competing to start. Owen Daniels is done by the way.

I guess we could have used a draft pick in the first or second round to make you feel better, but it wouldn't have made this team appreciably better.

Click to expand...

In defense of Brady6, I take Voltaire's maxim but slightly altered. I will forever defend Brady6s right to write and spout ridiculous assertions.

But when he does, I feel no obligation to NOT criticize the resultant tripe.

Armchair Quarterback said:

You disagreed that they would use it at all this year, when I said they would still use it on occasion.

Click to expand...

No, I disagreed that there is such a thing as an 'occassional base offense'.

AndyJohnson said:

No, I disagreed that there is such a thing as an 'occassional base offense'.

Click to expand...

The word base should not have been in that sentence. The overall point was even with Gronk being out the first 6 games and only Hooman and Mulligan as backups, through week 13 it was still only a 2 to 1 ratio of 3WR 1TE to 2WR 2TE sets. Any halfway decent free agent could have expected to see playing time. You repeatedly said that any backup would see the field only if Gronk was hurt. Those numbers dispute that.