On The Bubble - IMO, Almost All The Battles Are on Defense

OFFENSE (23)
I think that 23 are all but locked up, includes the two 4th rounders.
QB - 3
RB - 4
FB - 1
WR - 5
ST - 1
TE - 2
OL - 7
OPEN 2 At least one will be an offensive lineman. Perhaps a position can be "stolen" from the defense.

DEFENSE (16)
DL - 6
LB - 3
CB - 5
S - 2
IMHO, there are wide open battles at DL, LB and S.
OPEN - 9 positions

SPECIALISTS (3) none open

TOTAL
42 locks or almost locks
11 open positions

Last WR spot is a close battle. Boyce/Tyms. Boyce has extra value as a kick returner. and BB might have trouble parting with a 4th rd pick from just last year. But Tyms is going to make it a tough choice come week 5.

Last RB spot might be close too. Jonas Gray/Bolden. Bolden has been okay but nothing spectacular. Especially after he was suspended 4 weeks for testing positive.

OLine might have some tight competition.

Mallet could still be cut/traded if Garoppolo continues to shine.


DT/DE/LB/CB all seem pretty obvious at this point.

Anyways I won't lose sleep at night over this stuff. The decision is not mine and I have faith that BB will make the right choices. He sees a hell of a lot more than we ever will.

Yeah, I was just going to add that we have bubble players/positional battles at every single position on offense as well.

QB--Mallett
RB--Finch, Bolden
OL--Devey, Kline, maybe even Wendell
WR--Tyms, Boyce
TE--Williams, Jones

OFFENSE (23 plus 1-3)

1) I have 23 almost locks including Mallett and Bolden. Obviously, things can change.
2) I have 7 OL's so far. I have three you mention are IMHO competing for 1-2 roster spots.
3) Addition options are at KR and TE. IMHO, we do NOT have a battle at WR. Do you really think that we need more than 5 positional wide receivers?

BOTTOM LINE FOR ME
As we enter the 3rd preseason game, the offense is set, except for the final 2-3 roster spots which I think will go to 2 OL's, although a KR and/or TE could get a roster spot.

supafly said:

Yeah, I was just going to add that we have bubble players/positional battles at every single position on offense as well.

QB--Mallett
RB--Finch, Bolden
OL--Devey, Kline, maybe even Wendell
WR--Tyms, Boyce
TE--Williams, Jones

Click to expand...

MrNathanDrake said:

DT/DE/LB/CB all seem pretty obvious at this point.

Click to expand...

Really? I agree that the corners are obvious.

We will probably have the "normal" 15-16 front seven guys. After the first NINE, none are obvious to me. With the injuries, 14 seems unlikely this year.

THE OBVIOUS NINE
DL - Ninkovich, Jones, Wilfork, Kelly, Easley, Buchanan
LB - Mayo, Hightower, Collins

Who are the obvious SIX to you? Of course, we might keep 7.
PICK SIX
DL - Worthy, Smith, Moore, Siliga, C Jones, Vellano, Bass
LB - Anderson, Fleming, Beauharnais, White, Gordon

I'm shocked that some people still don't have Chris Jones in as a lock.

He put up 6 sacks in 11 starts as a rookie interior DLineman. I think he showed quite a bit last year, especially considering he was thrown to the wolves. 6th rd pick, got cut, came to New England, learnt a new playbook on the fly, and all of a sudden was starting every Sunday and expected to fill Wilforks shoes.

He did a pretty damn good job. Don't be surprised if he beats Tommy Kelly out for the starting job sometime this season.

He's making the 2nd year leap just like Collins and Dobson as well.

mgteich said:

IMHO, we do NOT have a battle at WR. Do you really think that we need more than 5 positional wide receivers?

Click to expand...

I think the bulk of the whole entire forum assumes more than 5 positional receivers to be honest with you.

Who do you cut?

1) Amendola
2) Edelman
3) Dobson
4) Thompkins
5) LaFell
6) Boyce (for first 4 games), followed by Tyms (for rest of the season)

Even if Boyce is cut now, leaving 5 original WRs (plus Slater) for the first month, Tyms will almost definitely be added, making a total of 7--or 6 "true" positional receivers.

I don't think it matters that much whether or not we cut Boyce now, or cut him when Tyms comes off of suspension. Either way, there will be 6 true receivers.

supafly said:

I think the bulk of the whole entire forum assumes more than 5 positional receivers to be honest with you.

Who do you cut?

1) Amendola
2) Edelman
3) Dobson
4) Thompkins
5) LaFell
6) Boyce (for first 4 games), followed by Tyms (for rest of the season)

Even if Boyce is cut now, leaving 5 original WRs (plus Slater) for the first month, Tyms will almost definitely be added, making a total of 7--or 6 "true" positional receivers.

I don't think it matters that much whether or not we cut Boyce now, or cut him when Tyms comes off of suspension. Either way, there will be 6 true receivers.

Click to expand...

Don't worry. Amendola won't last til week 5 anyways, so another roster spot at WR will open up eventually.

The funny thing about that WR depth chart is they can all be switched around any which way. I think LaFell will have a much bigger role than being the #5 WR.

The WR corps is looking like the Dynasty years. No superstars but a bunch of solid players. Now if only they can manage to not drop so many passes this year....

MrNathanDrake said:

Don't worry. Amendola won't last til week 5 anyways, so another roster spot at WR will open up eventually.

Click to expand...

I think he did everything possible and then some, to gut it out through the season last year when the team had a lack of talent and depth, in an attempt to prove his toughness. I think that it's people like you (no personal offense meant) who keep adding fuel to this fire, and while I don't blame your apprehension since there is some truth to it, I'm not sure that it's fairly represented.

YEAR ONE: 100% (was not signed for games 1 and 2, so only played in 14/14)
YEAR TWO: 100% (16 of 16)
YEAR THREE: early season injury in week one, causing him to miss the season
YEAR FOUR: 69% (11 of 16)
YEAR FIVE: 78% (14 of 18)


So, basically, when you take out one season where he had an early season ending injury, he has played in the following percentage of games throughout the other FOUR years---87%

While Amendola hasn't been a staple of consistency and health, he's not exactly what you and many others suggest.

Isn't Mallett in a battle for a roster spot, basically against himself and the looming spectre of JAG's improvement?

How about Finch v. Bolden (RB1#3 v. 3dRB#2), even assuming White's a "lock"?

How about Boyce (Leaving Tyms out due to suspension) v. Williams/Maneri/Jones and/or Williams v. Maneri v. Jones?

Is Cannon safe, or is he fighting for his job with the rest of the OL, save for Solder, Mankins and Vollmer (and the rookies if you look at past history instead of current level of play)?

I don't see all the battles being on the defensive side of the ball, at all. I see most positions on both sides being set with starters (OC, ORG, S2 being the 3 likeliest exceptions, 2 of those being on the offensive side of the ball), and followed by quite a bit of battling for backup spots.

supafly said:

While Amendola hasn't been a staple of consistency and health, he's not exactly what you and many others suggest.

Click to expand...

Come on, now. Adding playoff games, and subtracting 15 lost games from a 16 game season, is cheating like crazy. Be fair. Amendola has been the glassman he's been called.

Offense (21):

QB (3) - Brady, Garoppolo, Mallett
FB (1) - Develin
RB (3) - Ridley, Vereen, White
TE (2) - Gronkowski, Hoomanawanui
WR (6) - Amendola, Dobson, Edelman, LaFell, Slater, Thompkins
OT (4) - Cannon, Fleming, Solder, Vollmer
OG (1) - Mankins
OC (1) - Connolly

Hypothetical roster competition: 4th running back versus 3rd tight end versus 7th wide receiver

Hypothetical offensive line allotment: 9 (Pick 3 from Devey, Halapio, Kline, Stork, Wendell)

Deus Irae said:

Come on, now. Adding playoff games, and subtracting 15 lost games from a 16 game season, is cheating like crazy. Be fair. Amendola has been the glassman he's been called.

Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with taking out one year when a season ending injury occurred, to show the truth of the other FOUR years.

Even if you take out the 2 playoff games with N.England, the percentage of games played in the 4 year period without the season ending injury in his third year ends up at an even 86%:

YEAR ONE--100% 14/14
YEAR TWO--100 16/16
YEAR THREE---early season ending injury
YEAR FOUR--69% 11/16
YEAR FIVE--75% 12/16

I'm not saying that I don't understand or appreciate the concerns of Amendola and his injury situation. I am though, saying that I don't personally agree with the stuff that gets thrown around like "he'll be out by the 5th week anyway."

The truth is that he's played in 53/62 games in his four year career outside of the season ending injury with his leg in year three. While there is an injury concern there without doubt, I don't believe it warrants what often gets thrown around, that's all.

supafly said:

I see nothing wrong with taking out one year when a season ending injury occurred, to show the truth of the other FOUR years.

Click to expand...

But it's not really just doing that, is it? It's providing a skewed narrative.

supafly said:

Even if you take out the 2 playoff games with N.England, the percentage of games played in the 4 year period without the season ending injury in his third year ends up at an even 86%:

YEAR ONE--100% 14/14
YEAR TWO--100 16/16
YEAR THREE---early season ending injury
YEAR FOUR--69% 11/16
YEAR FIVE--75% 12/16

I'm not saying that I don't understand or appreciate the concerns of Amendola and his injury situation. I am though, saying that I don't personally agree with the stuff that gets thrown around like "he'll be out by the 5th week anyway."

Click to expand...

16 times 4 equals 64. 14+16+11+12=53

53/64 = .828125, not .86. So, even if you take out his lost year, he's still missing just under 1 out of every 5 games. And, yes, I know what I've done with his first year. It was deliberate, skewing in the opposite direction, to make a point.

supafly said:

The truth is that he's played in 53/62 games in his four year career outside of the season ending injury with his leg in year three. While there is an injury concern there without doubt, I don't believe it warrants what often gets thrown around, that's all.

Click to expand...

I hope this is the second year he's able to play a full 16 game regular season, and that he's healthy for the playoffs, but he's played in 54 of 78 (Not using the 2 games in year 1), which means that he's missed more than 3 out of every 10 games. Even giving him the 2/2 in the playoffs, he's still at 56/80, or just 70%. He's also only played one full 16 game season.

That's the reality.

Deus Irae said:

But it's not really just doing that, is it? It's providing a skewed narrative.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to disagree that removing someone's season ending injury doesn't skew things, but I was interested in seeing what the other four years represented in a career that is now going into the sixth year.

Seeing as how things look by doing that, I am convinced that while Amendola may be injury prone, he's also tough and tends to play more than some may have thought.

Deus Irae said:

53/64 = .828125, not .86.

Click to expand...

I added up the percentages of 100, 100, 69, and 75--which gave me 344. I then divided that 344 among 4 years to come up with = 86 percent.

I would agree with you that I should have taken the amount of games, rather than the percentage of games played, then divided that. That is why our percentages are a few percentage points off, between your 83 and my 86.

I still think the point remains the same. When you take out one major season ending injury, he plays in 5/6 games. That is much different from some of the ways that people view him.

As I said, I don't think it'd be fair to claim that he's not injury prone; but I wanted to see how far that "injury proneness" went outside of the season ending injury in the third year. I fully understand that you do not agree with the thinking. I did however, explain my methods to those who may wish to look further into it, or simply look past it. Some will agree with you, and some way agree with me that he hasn't really missed that many games outside of the season ending injury.

Deus Irae said:

he's played in 54 of 78 (Not using the 2 games in year 1), which means that he's missed more than 3 out of every 10 games. Even giving him the 2/2 in the playoffs, he's still at 56/80, or just 70%. He's also only played one full 16 game season.

That's the reality.

Click to expand...

That is the reality only if you include the season ending injury in year three, which I did not do because it would have defeated the purpose of trying to figure out how many games he's missed outside of the season ending injury.

You are showing the numbers (roughly 70%) overall, thus including the season ending injury. I wanted to know what would happen when one didn't include the season ending injury, due to curiosity about how many games he normally misses on average in "regular" years. That number states that he plays in approx. 5/6 games in years where he deals with his usual laundry list of various injuries.

I think your problem with the whole exercise is that you don't agree with leaving out the season ending injury, which is certainly understandable; but when one attempts to see how often he misses on regular years, how else would you propose going about it?

supafly said:

I'm not going to disagree that removing someone's season ending injury doesn't skew things, but I was interested in seeing what the other four years represented in a career that is now going into the sixth year.

Seeing as how things look by doing that, I am convinced that while Amendola may be injury prone, he's also tough and tends to play more than some may have thought.



I added up the percentages of 100, 100, 69, and 75--which gave me 344. I then divided that 344 among 4 years to come up with = 86 percent.

I would agree with you that I should have taken the amount of games, rather than the percentage of games played, then divided that. That is why our percentages are a few percentage points off, between your 83 and my 86.

I still think the point remains the same. When you take out one major season ending injury, he plays in 5/6 games. That is much different from some of the ways that people view him.

As I said, I don't think it'd be fair to claim that he's not injury prone; but I wanted to see how far that "injury proneness" went outside of the season ending injury in the third year. I fully understand that you do not agree with the thinking. I did however, explain my methods to those who may wish to look further into it, or simply look past it. Some will agree with you, and some way agree with me that he hasn't really missed that many games outside of the season ending injury.

Click to expand...

His "injury proneness" is that he misses games due to injury, sometimes just a couple, and sometimes almost an entire season. Also, it's kind of misleading to defend his "toughness" without also acknowledging when he's playing like a shell of himself because of injury, as he did for most of last season.

He's been injury prone. It is what it is. Instead of haggling over whether he's a sub 70% player or an 80%+ player, let's hope that he avoids injury this season, along with every other player on the Patriots. They've had enough years of significant and untimely injuries that they are due an uber healthy year.

Deus Irae said:

His "injury proneness" is that he misses games due to injury, sometimes just a couple, and sometimes almost an entire season. Also, it's kind of misleading to defend his "toughness" without also acknowledging when he's playing like a shell of himself because of injury, as he did for most of last season.

He's been injury prone. It is what it is. Instead of haggling over whether he's a sub 70% player or an 80%+ player, let's hope that he avoids injury this season, along with every other player on the Patriots. They've had enough years of significant and untimely injuries that they are due an uber healthy year.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry for including a ridiculous phrase like 'injury proneness' but I couldn't think of another way to say it. "Rate of injury" would have been more appropriate.

Either way, I agree that we're going in circles and should be hoping for better health. As I said though, I was curious as to what I deemed the "regular" yearly situations produced, and shared the results while admitting that I was purposely leaving out the injury ending season in week one of year three.

I realize that you don't care for this analysis, but it does answer the question of how many games he normally misses in years that don't have a season ending injury; and that number is less than I would've expected. For what it's worth, had he only played 2-3 years, I would find this exercise as ridiculous as you're suggesting, but since he's played 5 full years, I do not find it quite as bad as your insinuation.

supafly said:

That is the reality only if you include the season ending injury in year three, which I did not do because it would have defeated the purpose of trying to figure out how many games he's missed outside of the season ending injury.

You are showing the numbers (roughly 70%) overall, thus including the season ending injury. I wanted to know what would happen when one didn't include the season ending injury, due to curiosity about how many games he normally misses on average in "regular" years. That number states that he plays in approx. 5/6 games in years where he deals with his usual laundry list of various injuries.

I think your problem with the whole exercise is that you don't agree with leaving out the season ending injury, which is certainly understandable; but when one attempts to see how often he misses on regular years, how else would you propose going about it?

Click to expand...

I get what you were doing. You've gone with a version of the "Yeah, but" argument, and I'm down with that. It can be a very effective method. But, when you try kicking out the strongest plank of those on the other side of the debate, you're going to run into opposition, especially when you're so blatantly trying to slant the discussion as you are by removing an entire lost season.

Deus Irae said:

I get what you were doing. You've gone with a version of the "Yeah, but" argument, and I'm down with that. It can be a very effective method. But, when you try kicking out the strongest plank of those on the other side of the debate, you're going to run into opposition, especially when you're so blatantly trying to slant the discussion as you are by removing an entire lost season.

Click to expand...

I understand and appreciate the advice.

I put it out there--some may look at it and find it useful, others may not. I tried to include the caveat of stating that it did not include the season ending injury, since the object was to look at what I deemed "normal" years. I felt the sample size of 5 seasons was large enough, and wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.

I agree that can be seen as getting into deep water....or deep something.