A note on durability from the Herald

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2015/02/the_super_charged_six

Per the Herald:

• Only 6 Patriots started all 19 games last season.
• Only 3 Patriots started 18 games.

I can think of only 1 whose exclusion from those lists is bogus (Gronk, who only missed one game all season).

The 9 guys are:

• Brady
• Revis
• McCourty
• Wilfork (!)
• Solder and Vollmer (!)
• Ninkovich (duh)
• Chung
• Collins

Depth matters.

Fencer said:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2015/02/the_super_charged_six

Per the Herald:

• Only 6 Patriots started all 19 games last season.
• Only 3 Patriots started 18 games.

I can think of only 1 whose exclusion from those lists is bogus (Gronk, who only missed one game all season).

The 9 guys are:

• Brady
• Revis
• McCourty
• Wilfork (!)
• Solder and Vollmer (!)
• Ninkovich (duh)
• Chung
• Collins

Depth matters.

Click to expand...

Despite the seeming paucity of players who started every, or almost every, game, I bet that previous seasons had even fewer.

This reminds me of a little game I've been playing to sort out my thoughts on roster depth heading into the draft:

Complete this sentence: "If [X] goes down, we're in trouble"

Which players leave the team most vulnerable in the case of injury? Note this is different from saying "which players are most valuable" or "which positions have the biggest gap between starter and backup." E.g. Brady and Revis are leaps and bounds ahead of their backups, but the backup talent still looks solid at their positions. Whereas if Rob Ninkovich were injured...???

patchick said:

This reminds me of a little game I've been playing to sort out my thoughts on roster depth heading into the draft:

Complete this sentence: "If [X] goes down, we're in trouble"

Which players leave the team most vulnerable in the case of injury? Note this is different from saying "which players are most valuable" or "which positions have the biggest gap between starter and backup." E.g. Brady and Revis are leaps and bounds ahead of their backups, but the backup talent still looks solid at their positions. Whereas if Rob Ninkovich were injured...???

Click to expand...

Far and away the top answer to that question is Gronk. Hooman is his backup and is back of the roster material, not emergency starter material. Wright plays essentially a different position so he really doesn't count. Unfortunately there is no one in the draft that looks to be much of an improvement. Not sure if anyone in FA, either (who would be willing to sign a backup TE contract).

Hammer of Thor said:

Far and away the top answer to that question is Gronk. Hooman is his backup and is back of the roster material, not emergency starter material. Wright plays essentially a different position so he really doesn't count. Unfortunately there is no one in the draft that looks to be much of an improvement. Not sure if anyone in FA, either (who would be willing to sign a backup TE contract).

Click to expand...

Yet that position seems to rank 5th or 6th in draft discussions, whereas it was a PatsFans obsession last year. One year of a healthy Gronk -- and one year further away from the 2-TE offense -- and we seem to have a sense of false security.

patchick said:

Yet that position seems to rank 5th or 6th in draft discussions, whereas it was a PatsFans obsession last year. One year of a healthy Gronk -- and one year further away from the 2-TE offense -- and we seem to have a sense of false security.

Click to expand...

Some of us still want a three-TE offense.

Always always go best player available. When there are several at the same level a trade down.

If there is a guy 75% of Gronk : pounce. TEs are important and cheap. Imagine the amount of money NE is paying Gronk vs how much he affects the game.

BB loves TEs. Watson. Graham. Gronk.

patchick said:

Yet that position seems to rank 5th or 6th in draft discussions, whereas it was a PatsFans obsession last year. One year of a healthy Gronk -- and one year further away from the 2-TE offense -- and we seem to have a sense of false security.

Click to expand...

The question is whether the team can make do without a TE or FB. Given how few downs there are without 1-3 guys at those positions on the field, I'd have to say that the brain trust thinks they can't. So having 2 TEs they really like would be nice.

That said, I think the Tom to Jimmy drop-off would probably hurt more than Gronk to Hooman. While that's only a guess, I'd prefer not to get data that would make the answer clearer.

patchick said:

Yet that position seems to rank 5th or 6th in draft discussions, whereas it was a PatsFans obsession last year. One year of a healthy Gronk -- and one year further away from the 2-TE offense -- and we seem to have a sense of false security.

Click to expand...

I think attitudes might be slightly different when coming off a Super Bowl victory this year....

For me, as bad as the TE class was last year, there was (or appeared to be) mid round talent that could fill that role. I thought CJ Fiedorowicz could outperform Hooman, but wasn't worth the 65th pick that he wound up being selected in. As limited of a player as he is, there is no one out there like that this year. Might as well roll the dice on a few UDFAs this year and hope to strike gold. There's real talent in other positions this year that happen to align with all of the team's other needs, so I'm hoping that's where the focus on their draft will be.

And nobody realizes that more than Belichick. His ability to get and maintain quality depth and get good play out of them is unparalleled. And their ability to find players off the streets and make deals for depth during the season has been amazing the past few seasons.

Hammer of Thor said:

I think attitudes might be slightly different when coming off a Super Bowl victory this year....

For me, as bad as the TE class was last year, there was (or appeared to be) mid round talent that could fill that role. I thought CJ Fiedorowicz could outperform Hooman, but wasn't worth the 65th pick that he wound up being selected in. As limited of a player as he is, there is no one out there like that this year. Might as well roll the dice on a few UDFAs this year and hope to strike gold. There's real talent in other positions this year that happen to align with all of the team's other needs, so I'm hoping that's where the focus on their draft will be.

Click to expand...

I agree, the quality and depth of this TE class is as bad as it gets. No sense chasing picks they should focus upon greater needs and try to develop Wright.

farn said:

Always always go best player available.
...
If there is a guy 75% of Gronk : pounce. TEs are important and cheap. Imagine the amount of money NE is paying Gronk vs how much he affects the game.

BB loves TEs. Watson. Graham. Gronk.

Click to expand...

Hmm, isn't your first sentence contradicted by the rest? (IMO nobody really drafts "best player available," and certainly not the Patriots. The mantra "we're building a team, not just collecting talent" applies here.)

Best value at any position of need is a better description than BPA for BB's drafting stratedy

farn said:

Always always go best player available. When there are several at the same level a trade down.

If there is a guy 75% of Gronk : pounce. TEs are important and cheap. Imagine the amount of money NE is paying Gronk vs how much he affects the game.

BB loves TEs. Watson. Graham. Gronk.

Click to expand...

NE always goes need in the first round. Always.

Sure, it may be that it is just coincidence... or that "need" is a component of the value equation, but it is noteworthy that first rounders are always players who just so happen to play a position where a major role, even a starting slot most times, is open.

So, if you want to figure out where NE is going on draft day - assuming they don't trade out, of course - find the position that is suspiciously bare. If they don't snag one right off the bat, its a good bet a double dip is coming.

I've always looked at it as finding best value.

Best value is equal parts of best player available and positional need.

Take care of glaring holes in free agency and you are far less constricted to a specific position in the draft; that results in reaches and poor values when that is not the case.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

Best value at any position of need is a better description than BPA for BB's drafting stratedy

Click to expand...

Or even more simply, best value to the Patriots, if we note that:

• A player may be more valuable on one team than another due to scheme fit and so on.
• A player may be more or less valuable depending on who else is already on the roster.
• Each pick has an influence on the choices made with later picks, and hence changes their value somewhat.

jmt57 said:

I've always looked at it as finding best value.

Best value is equal parts of best player available and positional need.

Take care of glaring holes in free agency and you are far less constricted to a specific position in the draft; that results in reaches and poor values when that is not the case.

Click to expand...

Right. That approach to FA increases the value of the picks, by increasing the range of choices that can prudently be made with them.

Clive walford is a gronk like player. Not as big but great hands good routes good blocker.

jmt57 said:

I've always looked at it as finding best value.

Best value is equal parts of best player available and positional need.

Take care of glaring holes in free agency and you are far less constricted to a specific position in the draft; that results in reaches and poor values when that is not the case.

Click to expand...

I've always thought that you shouldn't draft a player just because you have a need at the position. Some years, the talent simply isn't there. That's why I don't mind an over-investment if the opportunity presents.

New England does not always go need in first round. Watson wasn't a need.