Michael Matthews
 

Does anyone but me really want to see this kid get some playing time?

He's 6'4" 270# and was apparently a heck of a blocking TE for the Giants, who had a pretty fair running game the past 2 years since he's been on the team. He was a UDFA from Georgia Tech but played in all 32 Giants games since signing in 2007. With only 8 catches in 2 seasons, he didn't get all that playing time for his downfield pass catching ability. He also played fullback some at Georgia Tech.

I could see a lot of valuable uses of this guy. I thought we would see him in the Jets and Ravens game where we could have used a blocking TE to help deal with the pressure on Brady. Now, with Taylor hurt and LoMo the likely starting RB, I could see a lot of value to using Matthews as a FB to pave the way. Maroney needs a lead blocker to clear some space for him. Finding daylight in a pile of jerseys is not his thing. Put him behind a truck who can plough through some backers to create some daylight, and I think Maroney would be a different runner.

Re: Michael Matthews
 

Thinking about this some more, I wouldn't mind seeing how the following works as a base formation:

5 OLs as currently
1 QB (Brady, obviously)
2 WRs (Welker and Moss)
1 TE (Watson, sometimes Baker)
1 RB (Maroney, with Morris as a short yardage back and to spell him)
1 FB/TE (Matthews)

Matthews could line up at fullback with Brady under center in a base formation. On running plays, he would act as a fullback for Maroney. On passing plays, he would look to pick up the unblocked man and protect Brady, or release and go 3-8 yards down field, turn around and present an extra target. Watson could stretch the field and cover the middle like a big WR. We could modify the basic formation by bringing in Edelman or Galloway as a 3rd WR selectively, or using Watson and Baker together in 2 TE formats selectively.

I would be curious to see how it would work.

Re: Michael Matthews
 

A couple of Paul Brown-era power sweeps with Mankins or Vollmer along with Matthews clearing the way for Maroney?

Yeah, that would be fun to watch. Something to give the opposing defense to think about as well, and set up a play action pass later on too.

Re: Michael Matthews
 

I think the bottom line is that we only need two wide receivers on the field. I absolutely agree. Watson can certainly stretch the field as needed.

Has Matthews played h-back or fullback? He better have had LOTS of experience if you want this to be the base formation.

What you have done is to elevate Matthews from a non-entity to a starter. Surely there is something in between.

I do indeed strongly support your base formation. I just disagree with the conclusion that the best one to be the second TE or fullback is Matthews. I could see Morris as the fullback. I could see Baker or Matthews as the 2nd tight end.

I also support greatly increasing the reps for tight ends, both Baker and Matthews.

Re: Michael Matthews
 

Mayo I love this idea. I think that Matthews will see more playing time as the season progresses and the offense evolves. I know he has been playing a lot on special teams, and I'm excited to know that he played as a college fullback at times. I agree that he could help Maroney a lot, as he is a very dangerous runner when he can get to the second level. His problem has been getting there.

Re: Michael Matthews
 

I said "I wouldn't mind seeing how this works", e.g., trying it out. I certainly wouldn't elevate Matthews to a starter or make it a base formation immediately, but I would try some reps with it and see if it was more effective. And I totally agree with your point about it not necessarily having to be Matthews, with Baker and Morris being reasonable alternates. I focused on Matthews because his size, blocking prowess, and experience at both TE and fullback would make him ideal if (and it's a big if) he can handle it. And as with our defense, I would expect frequent use of "sub" packages so that there's not that much significance between who is the "starter" and who isn't. Matthews, Baker and Morris would all get a lot of playing time along. 3 WRs would be used less often, but still fairly frequently.

Thanks or the feedback.

Re: Michael Matthews
 

It's worth a look as we need to do anything we can to get the running game, and specifically Maroney, into games now. What's he for the year, 2.6 per carry or something like that?

Also like the fact it can offer more protection to Brady on passing plays, and sub package wise if you are going to be use it as a base with a FB you can look for guys like Faulk or Morris instead if Mathews can't catch the ball like his stats would suggest

Re: Michael Matthews
 

It's definitely worth a shot. I mean, at some level the Pats coaching staff doesn't trust the run. It's been like that more often than not. PERHAPS, part of what sometimes gets Brady beat up, is that teams pin their ears back and rush the passer, because if they guess pass they are usually right. If putting Matthews in makes the team more balanced, I am all for it.

Re: Michael Matthews
 

His 2 snaps last week are probably a combination of game-plan and easing him in.

The snap counts could be tricky this weekend, which could keep him limited, but I agree. I expected him to be activated last week, and I'm assuming that will be the case again this week. His being specifically a run blocker will force the defense to watch for his number as a rip-off.

That said, his limited number of catches might also relate to who his QB was.

Whatever the case, I expect the TE's to be big factors again this week. Say what you want about Watson, the guy can make the big catches and win most 1-1 match-up's pretty handily.

3 TE's active with this mix of guys also essentially gives us more WR's. Add in that 3 of 4 of this week's RB's are proven to have good hands, and the options and ability (in theory) to hide the upcoming play, and this should be a fun game - possibly the one that locates and exploits weaknesses in the current #1 Defense.

Re: Michael Matthews
 

I don't see him as just a run blocker. Plug him in a FB, use play action, and on passing plays he becomes essentially an extra lineman to pick up the unblocked guy, or he can release and be a short yardage safety outlet. Don't know how his hands are, though.