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

pencilneckgeek said:

We cut Boyce now and have 5 true receivers and then we see whether Tyms fits on the team after 4 weeks, depending on what marginal players show in practice and the health of various positions.

What's funny is that the forum was fairly evenly split between whether we would have 5 or 6 receivers (with the smart money on 5 to my mind) until Tyms flashed in game 1, and suddenly, the popular question is which 6 receivers do we keep. We have one #1 receiver and four #2 receivers. With Dobson back and Amendola still upright, there really isn't call for a #6 receiver, unless he can cover kicks and run back kickoffs. Boyce is fighting an uphill battle to stay in town these next two weeks, and even if he does well, he may only be earning himself a job elsewhere. Tyms is biding his time until after someone gets hurt, and if he can't replace them, he gets waived and finds a job elsewhere or sneaks onto the PS.

Click to expand...

We will probably run a lot of 3 WR formations. I don't see what's bad with keeping 6 receivers if they can play.

Marinlik said:

We will probably run a lot of 3 WR formations. I don't see what's bad with keeping 6 receivers if they can play.

Click to expand...

It's not bad; it's a trade-off. Do we go with 8 OL and whoever gets through to the PS? Do we play 3 RB at a position where players frequently suffer long-term injuries? Do we go with 5 DT (four of whom play every game), where all or all but one of them are recovering from injury? The 4th true WR plays regularly. The 5th true WR is often on the inactive list. Perhaps, this year with a weaker TE corps, we dress 5 WR each game, in which case a 6th WR who plays ST might be worth keeping (in addition to the 7th WR, who does play ST), but I just don't see the math working-out for Boyce.

To me, the whole discussion about 6th WR (not counting Slater) vs. 5th RB vs. 3rd TE vs. 9th OL is about the actual players competing for those spots. For instance the guy competing for 3rd TE is pretty terrible and offers no upgrade over waiver wire pick ups. Guys like Finch and Tyms represent an upgrade over waiver wire pick ups. The discussion shouldn't be focused on the numbers of players we have at a position but rather on the talent of the guys competing for that spot.

There are a lot of factors that will go into how that last spot or too is divided positionally. That will include the ability of the player in a vacuum, the health of the rest of his grouping, and ability to contribute on special teams. It will also include factors of positional flexibility. For example, in a pinch, we could use a player like Vereen to play wide receiver. You wouldn't want it for a long stretch of time, but he could fill in. Conversely, I don't think any of the candidates for 6th wide receiver could be used out of the backfield effectively.

It's not the only factor, but I have to imagine that will play a part in the decision.

1) I think that we might consider the total number of receptions by the #6 WR receivers in the Belichick era.

2) I think that we might consider the highest number of receptions by the #5 WR in the Belichick era.

This should give of some perspective with regard to hoes critical this position really is. It seems that almost every year we have a Childress. Morey or a Tyms. Some might put Gallon in the same category.
And every year, these players are waived. The reality is that we don't need 6 WR's. If one of these players is that good, the answer is to trade one of our WR's. The answer is NOT to keep 6 wideouts.

KICK RETURNER
The issue of whether we keep Boyce or Finch as a kick returner is another issue entirely. However, I don't think Boyce would bump one of the 5 receivers, and I don't think that Finch would bump Bolden.
IMHO, Bolden COULD be waived, but only with the idea of signing a RB from another team.

Pats-Phan said:

To me, the whole discussion about 6th WR (not counting Slater) vs. 5th RB vs. 3rd TE vs. 9th OL is about the actual players competing for those spots. For instance the guy competing for 3rd TE is pretty terrible and offers no upgrade over waiver wire pick ups. Guys like Finch and Tyms represent an upgrade over waiver wire pick ups. The discussion shouldn't be focused on the numbers of players we have at a position but rather on the talent of the guys competing for that spot.

Click to expand...

Of course it's about the players, but to paraphrase the Coach: It's not about accumulating talent; it's about building a football team. It's a numbers game, because there are only 53 guys on the roster and only 46 on the game day roster. With only 1 IR designated to return slot available, many of the 7 inactive roster spots are usually occupied by guys who are hurt. That means that the reserves need to have something they can do. We can't keep a backup to a backup, simply because he'll do a decent job if he happens to be needed, because there aren't enough slots. If a coach could anticipate a position having a run of injuries, he would put extra depth at that position, but that can't be done.

You look at a players ability to contribute given the competition on the team, his positional versatility, and the need for depth at a given position and make a call on who makes the team and who doesn't. A coach may have heartache about letting a talented player go, but in the end, that's what happens. The NFL sees plenty of very talented players who don't make it. Who knows? Maybe Beauharnais/Fleming or Devey/Kline becomes the latest Marquice Cole/Ross Ventrone yo-yoing back and forth from roster to the PS, and BB figures out a way to keep an extra player, but that's getting a touch too fancy for the prediction game.

mgteich said:

1) I think that we might consider the total number of receptions by the #6 WR receivers in the Belichick era.

2) I think that we might consider the highest number of receptions by the #5 WR in the Belichick era.

This should give of some perspective with regard to hoes critical this position really is. It seems that almost every year we have a Childress. Morey or a Tyms. Some might put Gallon in the same category.
And every year, these players are waived. The reality is that we don't need 6 WR's. If one of these players is that good, the answer is to trade one of our WR's. The answer is NOT to keep 6 wideouts.

KICK RETURNER
The issue of whether we keep Boyce or Finch as a kick returner is another issue entirely. However, I don't think Boyce would bump one of the 5 receivers, and I don't think that Finch would bump Bolden.
IMHO, Bolden COULD be waived, but only with the idea of signing a RB from another team.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with cutting Josh Boyce. I don't believe that he's shown enough to justify keeping him on the roster in either a WR or a KOR role. He's more of a developmental prospect.

The truth of the matter is that we really bite the bullet once again due to the fact that we needed to use a developmental prospect like Boyce in so many "active" roles last season. Had that not occurred due to the piss poor lack of receiving options, he may have spent this upcoming season on the practice squad. Unfortunately that isn't the case, since he's not eligible, so it's looking like he's a goner.

Now..if one wanted to argue that we're going to keep 6 true WRs, then he'd obviously be here in the beginning, and likely would be swapped out with Tyms after week 4. So far from what I've seen, Tyms looks more experienced, more polished, and more talented; even if he doesn't necessarily possess the same kind of raw speed and explosiveness. At this point, I think we'd all like to keep Boyce in the hope the he may develop (I don't think he will in this specific offense), but we just don't have the room.

EDIT: As I scrolled down the front page, I saw something on Josh Boyce now being PS eligible, so I am interested in reading more about that.

50-yard-line said:

Minor quibble - wasn't he signed in week 3 the first year? So it'd be 14?

Click to expand...

You're probably right. That is probably why I had a bit of a higher percentage at 86 vs his 83. Either way, we've moved on--but thanks for pointing that out nonetheless.

MrNathanDrake said:

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....

Click to expand...

This. 41 drops last year placed them only behind the Lions. By contrast the Chargers and Hawks had only 13. That # is unacceptable.

Marinlik said:

We will probably run a lot of 3 WR formations. I don't see what's bad with keeping 6 receivers if they can play.

Click to expand...

People should keep in mind that by the AFC championship game, the only healthy WR on the team was Edlemann. We'll, Collie too I suppose, if you can ever count him as healthy.

from what we've seen in preseason so far

Tyms > Boyce