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

patchick · Aug 17, 2014

Brady6 said:
They could have sure it up, they could have signed Scott Chandler, Andrew Quarless, Ed ****son Jeff Cumberland, Brandon Myers, Garrett Graham, Brandon Pettigrew, Owen Daniels, John Carlson, any of those players would have been an upgrade over Hooman and improved our current situation drastically. We could have made a play for Chandler he would have been perfect, 2 year deal for $4.75M, we could have swung it without an issue.

Yeah, I agree that FA had more possibilities, certainly a lot more than the draft. But some would have been little help (e.g. Owen Daniels), others give me the "Chris Baker" shakes, and for some I think the "could have signed" part is wishful thinking.

E.g., don't believe Scott Chandler would have opted for playing second fiddle to Gronk in a McDaniels offense, that would be a lousy career decision. (Plus whenever I see a guy re-sign with his original team a couple of days into free agency I suspect he was just using the FA market as a bargaining ploy.)
And Brandon Pettigrew signed for $4 million/year, $8 million guaranteed -- huge money for a backup with the dropsies.

In the end, Ed ****son and Andrew Quarless leap out as two players who seemed potentially attainable and worth it. And yes, I dearly wish they'd signed one of them. So I don't mean to suggest that a backup TE is a completely unattainable object, just that the closer you look, the scantier the options turn out to be.

Deus Irae · Aug 17, 2014

VrabelJr said:
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.

No, this board is obsessed with having quality backups to critical players. And it should be. In case you haven't been watching Patriots football in the past decade, a dearth of such players is a big part of why the team has not won a SB since 2004.

mgteich · Aug 17, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
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.

I'm confused.

You say that we could have signed a couple of Hooman equals.

Then, why didn't we do so? Did we think that neither Gronk nor Hooman are subject to injury? Didn't we think that 2 Hooman equivalents were needed for camp?

To be blunt, we needed a replacement for Hooman if he was injured or not 100%.

BOTTOM LINE
Belichick has chosen to go with Hooman as Gronk's backup. After the 1st round of the draft, Belichick didn't see anyone better than Hooman. Many posters disagree with that analysis.

If I go with that analysis, we still needed, and still need a backup in case of injury. If a couple of guys were Hooman equivalents, then perhaps they should have been signed. As you say, if they didn't measure up, they would be blocking TE's.

The team was reduced to bringing in Manieri in order to start, with no backup. We needn't to have been in that situation. Belichick KNEW that Gronk was likely not to play much in camp or the the preseason. It seems that we needed more than Hooman and the UDFA's on the 90 man squad.

mgteich · Aug 17, 2014

Not so scanty if Quarless and ****son leap out. I suspect that there were others who could have provided insurance against Hooman being injured, and provided camp bodies. Even, more Manieri types would have helped.

Was the situation of this past week really OK? Was it is shock that Gronk wasn't available? How many TE's should a team have available for practice and a preseason game. Surely, the answer is more than one OT who can play blocking TE.

patchick said:
In the end, Ed ****son and Andrew Quarless leap out as two players who seemed potentially attainable and worth it. And yes, I dearly wish they'd signed one of them. So I don't mean to suggest that a backup TE is a completely unattainable object, just that the closer you look, the scantier the options turn out to be.

Ring 6 · Aug 17, 2014

mgteich said:
I'm confused.

You say that we could have signed a couple of Hooman equals.

Then, why didn't we do so? Did we think that neither Gronk nor Hooman are subject to injury? Didn't we think that 2 Hooman equivalents were needed for camp?

To be blunt, we needed a replacement for Hooman if he was injured or not 100%.

BOTTOM LINE
Belichick has chosen to go with Hooman as Gronk's backup. After the 1st round of the draft, Belichick didn't see anyone better than Hooman. Many posters disagree with that analysis.

If I go with that analysis, we still needed, and still need a backup in case of injury. If a couple of guys were Hooman equivalents, then perhaps they should have been signed. As you say, if they didn't measure up, they would be blocking TE's.

The team was reduced to bringing in Manieri in order to start, with no backup. We needn't to have been in that situation. Belichick KNEW that Gronk was likely not to play much in camp or the the preseason. It seems that we needed more than Hooman and the UDFA's on the 90 man squad.

That's what he attempted to do with Williams maneri hartsock and udfas.

"Another hoomans" isn't much different than those guys.

Ring 6 · Aug 17, 2014

mgteich said:
Not so scanty if Quarless and ****son leap out. I suspect that there were others who could have provided insurance against Hooman being injured, and provided camp bodies. Even, more Manieri types would have helped.

Was the situation of this past week really OK? Was it is shock that Gronk wasn't available? How many TE's should a team have available for practice and a preseason game. Surely, the answer is more than one OT who can play blocking TE.

Quarless stayed with his original ten for more opportunity and it's doubtful he was much of an upgrade to hooman.
Perhaps ****son but didn't he go to a team desperate for anyone who can catch a pass?

Ring 6 · Aug 17, 2014

mgteich said:
Not so scanty if Quarless and ****son leap out. I suspect that there were others who could have provided insurance against Hooman being injured, and provided camp bodies. Even, more Manieri types would have helped.

Was the situation of this past week really OK? Was it is shock that Gronk wasn't available? How many TE's should a team have available for practice and a preseason game. Surely, the answer is more than one OT who can play blocking TE.

The situation this week was fine. Unless you think who plays in preseason games matters.
Bb could have kept hartsock or oh hers around to have fodder but he chose not to.
Id rather see the best of the fodder get all the snaps to see what we have.

Ring 6 · Aug 17, 2014

Deus Irae said:
No, this board is obsessed with having quality backups to critical players. And it should be. In case you haven't been watching Patriots football in the past decade, a dearth of such players is a big part of why the team has not won a SB since 2004.

No team has star backups to their star players. That is not the reason we have nit won a SB.
Perhaps you can take the blame injury excuse approach but you can't in good faith say we didn't win SBs because the backup to the injured star wasn't as good. That's just lying to yourself about what is realistic.

mgteich · Aug 17, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
That's what he attempted to do with Williams maneri hartsock and udfas.

"Another hoomans" isn't much different than those guys.

Manieri and Hartsock were available to start Training Camp? I missed it.

My point is that we should have signed the 2 Hooman types that you say we could have before camp. I agree that Hooman would likely to still have been the backup to Gronk. Personally, I think that there is an advantage to having competition for Hooman. Also, I think that there is an advantage to have a couple of players who played for us during camp who MIGHT need to be on the 53 depending on how healthy Hooman and Gronk are.

You seem to think it is OK not to have any backups for Hooman. You seem to think that it is OK for Hooman not to have any competition for his roster spot in camp.

OK, I don't think that our starting OT's should be taking reps at TE late in a preseason game. So, I was not OK with the TE situation. Also, it would have helped the offense to have TE's who actually play the position. That way, the offensive line play and other play might have been more "normal", and not be colored by the fact that no TE was available.

BOTTOM LINE
You're right. Who plays in preseason games doesn't matter. The games themselves don't matter. However, if they are truly to prepare for the season, then having TE's on the field helps. In the end, if Gronk and Hooman are healthy for Game One, none of this discussion matters. If one is not, we'll simply say that we were unlucky not to have even one backup in case of injury.

So, now it YOU who are saying that Williams can be a backup to Gronk? NOT

So, now it is YOU who think that we should depend on UDFA's and not being in JAG veterans? Really?

mgteich · Aug 17, 2014

BelichickFan said:
Duncan is still unsigned.

Wasn't he the best UDFA prospect out there?

Armchair Quarterback · Aug 17, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
No team has star backups to their star players. That is not the reason we have nit won a SB.
Perhaps you can take the blame injury excuse approach but you can't in good faith say we didn't win SBs because the backup to the injured star wasn't as good. That's just lying to yourself about what is realistic.

Again, no one expects a star player to be a backup. He said quality and I earlier simply said more capable than Hooman. Gronk was 39-562-4 in 7 games (6 starts), Hoomanawanui and Mulligan combined for 14-152-2 in 14 starts, that's an astronomical difference, about 1/7 the production.

Ring 6 · Aug 17, 2014

mgteich said:
Manieri and Hartsock were available to start Training Camp? I missed it.

My point is that we should have signed the 2 Hooman types that you say we could have before camp. I agree that Hooman would likely to still have been the backup to Gronk. Personally, I think that there is an advantage to having competition for Hooman. Also, I think that there is an advantage to have a couple of players who played for us during camp who MIGHT need to be on the 53 depending on how healthy Hooman and Gronk are.

You seem to think it is OK not to have any backups for Hooman. You seem to think that it is OK for Hooman not to have any competition for his roster spot in camp.

OK, I don't think that our starting OT's should be taking reps at TE late in a preseason game. So, I was not OK with the TE situation. Also, it would have helped the offense to have TE's who actually play the position. That way, the offensive line play and other play might have been more "normal", and not be colored by the fact that no TE was available.

BOTTOM LINE
You're right. Who plays in preseason games doesn't matter. The games themselves don't matter. However, if they are truly to prepare for the season, then having TE's on the field helps. In the end, if Gronk and Hooman are healthy for Game One, none of this discussion matters. If one is not, we'll simply say that we were unlucky not to have even one backup in case of injury.

So, now it YOU who are saying that Williams can be a backup to Gronk? NOT

So, now it is YOU who think that we should depend on UDFA's and not being in JAG veterans? Really?

You sure like to put words in my mouth

patchick · Aug 17, 2014

mgteich said:
Not so scanty if Quarless and ****son leap out. I suspect that there were others who could have provided insurance against Hooman being injured, and provided camp bodies. Even, more Manieri types would have helped.

Was the situation of this past week really OK? Was it is shock that Gronk wasn't available? How many TE's should a team have available for practice and a preseason game. Surely, the answer is more than one OT who can play blocking TE.

Again, I'm not arguing that the TE depth is adequate. I get the impression that they overvalue Hooman, and even so I'm certain they'll be watching the waiver wires. But for last week, the issue wasn't that Gronk wasn't available, it was that Gronk AND Hooman AND Williams weren't available.

(Also, why do people keep saying Maneri is an OT who the Patriots are trying to convert? It was my impression that he's been a tight end since the end of the 2011 season, am I wrong?)

Ring 6 · Aug 17, 2014

Armchair Quarterback said:
Again, no one expects a star player to be a backup. He said quality and I earlier simply said more capable than Hooman. Gronk was 39-562-4 in 7 games (6 starts), Hoomanawanui and Mulligan combined for 14-152-2 in 14 starts, that's an astronomical difference, about 1/7 the production.

What player do you think we could sign that would change that?
We use the TE as a weapon not a security blanket. Mcdaniels is not going to call plays that feature ed ****son or John Carlson and Brady isn't going to focus on them.
I see next to no difference between those 2 catching 14 passes or someone else catching 22.

patchick · Aug 17, 2014

patchick said:
(Also, why do people keep saying Maneri is an OT who the Patriots are trying to convert? It was my impression that he's been a tight end since the end of the 2011 season, am I wrong?)

Just in case anybody else is as confused as I was, I double-checked: Steve Maneri was converted to tight end by the Chiefs after the 2011 season. He played TE for KC in 2012 and Chicago in 2013, appearing in a total of 17 games with 9 starts and 5 receptions. He's no receiving threat, but he is a tight end.

mgteich · Aug 17, 2014

I was trying to recall whether Manieri had more yards than Slater as a receiver in the past 3 seasons. It turns out that he had 6 more yards than Slater.

But yes, Manieri has been a TE for 3 years. However, he probably wouldn't be more of a threat to catch a pass than Cannon or Solder. Manieri is a backup OT playing TE, a good thing for a #4 OT to be able to do.

patchick said:
(Also, why do people keep saying Maneri is an OT who the Patriots are trying to convert? It was my impression that he's been a tight end since the end of the 2011 season, am I wrong?)

JackBauer · Aug 17, 2014

I do wish they would've signed Chandler.

Armchair Quarterback · Aug 17, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
What player do you think we could sign that would change that?
We use the TE as a weapon not a security blanket. Mcdaniels is not going to call plays that feature ed ****son or John Carlson and Brady isn't going to focus on them.
I see next to no difference between those 2 catching 14 passes or someone else catching 22.

How about 50 catches then? They've both had years in which they've started 16 games and had over 50 catches which would make them capable, unlike Hoomananawui, of being a functional part of the offense if pressed into starting. That's all this stupid debate is about - someone better than Hoomananawui. Your weapon/security blanket statement is simply an attempt to disqualify anyone that disproves or discredits your POV.

BelichickFan · Aug 17, 2014

And Justin Jones is back. The dream remains.

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 5m
The Patriots have re-signed undrafted tight end Justin Jones.

Marqui · Aug 17, 2014

I was hoping they were about to sign Keller :/

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

Moderatrix

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Veteran

PatsFans.com Veteran

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Moderatrix

PatsFans.com Supporter

Moderatrix

PatsFans.com Veteran

Hall of Fame Poster

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Similar threads