Roster Arithmetic
 

OFFENSE (25)
I think that we need all of the following
QB 3
RB 5 (have we learned yet that RB is a punishing position?)
WR 5 (not 6)
TE 3
C 2
OG 3
OT 4
----------------------------------------
DEFENSE (22)
This is all that we need to play defense. For LB and DL, only 5 get almost all the reps.
DL 7
OLB 4 (at least one must be able to play inside)
ILB 3
CB 4 (the dime back, or even backup nickel is sometimes a safety)
S 4
------------------------------------------
SPECIALISTS (3)
Kicker, punter and deep snapper
-------------------------------------------
DEFENSIVE SPECIAL TEAMS OR DEVELOPMENTAL PLAYERS (3)
Recently, these positions have been filled by linebackers and safeties. However, they theoretically could be at any position.

Re: Roster Arithmetic
 

Just looking at this quick...I do think RB is more 4 than 5...I agree that it is a punishing position but if Morris was healthy, all would have been really great in that position. They really played a LOT of teh year with 3 as Eckel was more an ST player..

Re: Roster Arithmetic
 

I'd like to see 4 TE's instead of 3 ... even if 2 of them play other positions. Preferable 2 who can catch so we can release one on blitzes when there is a hole left from the blitz. We were much stronger with Graham & Watson and we need to get back to that. Kyle Brady was too old ... youth with strength is good enough.

Re: Roster Arithmetic
 

Obviously, a lot of guys are hybrids. E.g., I say there are two backup interior OL and leave it at that. But basically you're spot-on on offense. (With Cassell coming to the end of his undistinguished tenure, this probably won't be a year to go with 2 QB.) And of course you're right on K/P/LS.

DL -- yep. 7 is the way to start the season, with at least 2 being no-apologies NT. (Since almost every DE starts out at NT, that could be enough.)

S and CB -- yep. 4 each are needed to start the season.

That leaves 10 slots for LB, ST-focused, and general developmental. I think the position where your regular-vs.-ST distinction works least well is LB. Chatham, TBC, Woods, Alexander, Izzo, Don Davis -- all have been ST LBs who got regular LB reps even so.

Re: Roster Arithmetic
 

I think Belichick prefers to carry 4 TEs. Other than that, your list looks good to me. Belichick has commented a couple of times in the past thta, in hindsight, he has felt that he carried too few DL (he blames that for the Panthers' near-comeback in the 2003 SB), so I think that 7 is just about right there.

Re: Roster Arithmetic
 

Hate to pile on, but you can use 3 TEs in 1 set. 4 at that position.

PFnV

Re: Roster Arithmetic
 

Didn't he go into the Jacksonville game with only 4 DL active? That shocked me, in light of the quote you're talking about.

As for the TEs -- Vrabel is the 4th. If 2 TEs got injured, he'd add a JAG.

We know BB would like more depth at almost all the positions. The numbers mgteich put up have proven inadequate at least one year each at almost every position, P and LS not excepted. But 53 is the limit, so there are tradeoffs to make.

Re: Roster Arithmetic
 

I'd rather have a veteran 5th RB than have a 4th TE, since we never seem to have depth at RB when there is an injury. I think that having a veteran RB already on the squad would have been much more useful than bring in Eckel off the streets for a rep or two. However, I do not have strong feelings against a 4th TE instead.

My question is simple one. When have ever had 4 TE's? We carry three. Vrabel is #4. If there is an injury and we need another blocking TE, Hochstein has played the position, as has O'Callaghan.

Re: Roster Arithmetic
 

I say 5 RB is a necessity. In our last 2 playoff losses, Faulk was hurt late in the 2nd quarter. The offense sputters without Faulk on 3rd down. We need a backup RB who can pick up the blitz and be a player in the short passing game.

Prediction: we sign Mewelde Moore or draft Mike Hart of Michigan.