BB the first with 4RBs - now 6WRs?

[pdangle]

To my recent knowledge BB was the first coach to go 4 deep at RB. Seems ordinary now, but remember back 5-6 years when many teams still went with a 1 RB, and you'd even see 3-4 even 5 RBs drafted in the first round. The season I'm thinking of, If I'm not mistaken, BJGE was last man on the depth chart, and as fate would have it NE needed all 4 of them and BJGE too by seasons end. They all went down at some point two at a time.

So BB came up roses that season, when many of us in August were like 4RBs?, that's two roster spots for my binkies damn you! But BB got burnt the year before with crazy injuries to the 2 barely 3 deep RB corps I recall, and now with 4, it couldn't have worked out better. So I think this was the moment BB made a major shift in his roster construction.

Off track, but yet again, we see BB years ahead of the curve. 3-4 RBs is now commonplace in today's NFL. But again not the point of this post. Soooooo...

I was looking over our WR depth chart, and we really have 6 guys that are all pretty fungible talent wise. I think BB sees now what he saw with RBs, injury attrition erodes WR depth in today's NFL as surely as sands through the hourglass, so are the days... Or something like that. It's pretty much like death and taxes. Inevitable. You will lose players over a long run of seasons. Sometimes a bunch. You may get lucky a season or two, e.g. see tRex Ryan's paper thin NYJ skate injury free during their recent two AFC "Championship game" seasons, and then what happened in year 3 when it finally caught up to them. And that was just a normal season of injuries IMO. Again not the point here, but just some back story I guess to my point, which will soon be made.

I think we're seeing a shift, that, aside from a few dominant receivers, which BB can't get his hands on through the draft or in FA because they are completely overvalued in his opinion, he's going with the 6-man all-fungible #2a receiving corps. Train them to run the proper routes. And you'll never have a problem replacing any of them. At least compared to a dynamic #1 that is.

Maybe the days of a 1,2,3 WRs is over in the NFL. Were looking at a trend of 6-deep. Easier to acquire, easier to replace, more resilient, and overall over the course of a typical season, more productive than when your top heavy 1,2, or 3 guy or guys get hurt, and your stuck with a 2,5 and a 6. While with NE we still got a 2a, 2a and 2a.

 

[OhExaulted1]

I totally get your point, and it rings true. RB's and WR's are just not as tough in this era. We used to complain about Terry Glenn being scratched for hangnails and hat-head. He was the exception. Every minor injury is a huge deal now and the guy has to sit. It's ridiculous. These guys are (excuse the French) ****ies. Nowadays it has to be RB AND WR by commitee, because these (excuse the French) ****ies aren't everyday guys and can't play through anything.

We are in the era of man-up and do your job has ended, with pampered mid-level talent who get big guaranteed money and will sit at the first sign of swamp-ass after an expensive meal and a couple of drinks at Davio's. No wonder BB has such disdain for these positions. There a bunch of momma's boys with no sack.

 

[pdangle]

Wow I did not see that coming. I just think it's a matter of bigger faster defenders hitting faster shiftier players. In both cases speed makes the hits harder. Injuries are just bad luck. But we are seeing more in the nfl and I think the trend will continue. Muscles and tendons can only take so much. And we're at that limit. IMO.

Also It may seem that they sit with a hangnail, but I think in the NFL today even if you're at 95%, your backup is better at 100%. And coaches have realized this. So we're seeing players sit with once minor injuries. And hey, you got those 6 other guys ready on the bench, so might as well play em.

 

[OhExaulted1]

Wow I did not see that coming. I just think it's a matter of bigger faster defenders hitting faster shiftier players. In both cases speed makes the hits harder. Injuries are just bad luck. But we are seeing more in the nfl and I think the trend will continue. Muscles and tendons can only take so much. And we're at that limit. IMO.

Also It may seem that they sit with a hangnail, but I think in the NFL today even if you're at 95%, your backup is better at 100%. And coaches have realized this. So we're seeing players sit with once minor injuries. And hey, you got those 6 other guys ready on the bench, so might as well play em.

No, I have to disagree, they're (excuse the French) ****ies.

 

[patriot lifer]

The RB position historically has a low average # of years in the NFL (perhaps the lowest of any position). Plus teams emphasize passing more than running. The result is that teams can use the committee approach because it's cheaper on the cap and on draft resources (i.e. not using 1st round picks). On top of that, it's advantageous for year-to-year roster management of the RB position. And once an "old" RB becomes "old" (e.g. Ray Rice), the descent in performance is swift.

In BJGE's first year starting for us, we carried 5 RBs entering the season. It had a lot less to do with players being "p*ssies". We had Fred Taylor (> 30 years old, injury prone), Kevin Faulk (>30 years old, 3rd down back), Lawrence Maroney (injury prone), and Sammy Morris (>30 years old). BB was mindful of the composition of our RB corps, and we were not over-committed to any one player cap-wise.

I think there's some truth to the idea in the OP, but I think WR is inherently different than RBs. For example, WRs can be good for 10+ years, but that is not the case for RBs. I think BB would trade having a lot of WRs with potential (the status quo) for fewer WRs who are reliable (i.e. David Patton, Givens, etc). But in support of the original post, the fact that it's a pass-first NFL means that WR's have more opportunities to get hurt.

In conclusion, if teams are deeper at WR, I think it has mostly to do with the NFL being a pass-first league. I don't know if we'll see WRs not being drafted in the 1st round, or given large contracts, like the RB position. But an interesting thought by the OP. Another trend to watch for.

 

[OhExaulted1]

The RB position historically has a low average # of years in the NFL (perhaps the lowest of any position). Plus teams emphasize passing more than running. The result is that teams can use the committee approach because it's cheaper on the cap and on draft resources (i.e. not using 1st round picks). On top of that, it's advantageous for year-to-year roster management of the RB position. And once an "old" RB becomes "old" (e.g. Ray Rice), the descent in performance is swift.

In BJGE's first year starting for us, we carried 5 RBs entering the season. It had a lot less to do with players being "p*ssies". We had Fred Taylor (> 30 years old, injury prone), Kevin Faulk (>30 years old, 3rd down back), Lawrence Maroney (injury prone), and Sammy Morris (>30 years old). BB was mindful of the composition of our RB corps, and we were not over-committed to any one player cap-wise.

I think there's some truth to the idea in the OP, but I think WR is inherently different than RBs. For example, WRs can be good for 10+ years, but that is not the case for RBs. I think BB would trade having a lot of WRs with potential (the status quo) for fewer WRs who are reliable (i.e. David Patton, Givens, etc). But in support of the original post, the fact that it's a pass-first NFL means that WR's have more opportunities to get hurt.

In conclusion, if teams are deeper at WR, I think it has mostly to do with the NFL being a pass-first league. I don't know if we'll see WRs not being drafted in the 1st round, or given large contracts, like the RB position. But an interesting thought by the OP. Another trend to watch for.

I think alot of posters recognize this and this is why they want to see more depth at TE. I think most (like me) thought the double TE sets were ahead of the curve and even in the wake of Aaron Berkowitz thought we would concentrate more on that spot.

It's not so much a "passing league" now, it's a "short passing league", which has really begun to replace the run game. A trend that really started right here.

 

[patriot lifer]

I think alot of posters recognize this and this is why they want to see more depth at TE. I think most (like me) thought the double TE sets were ahead of the curve and even in the wake of Aaron Berkowitz thought we would concentrate more on that spot.

It's not so much a "passing league" now, it's a "short passing league", which has really begun to replace the run game. A trend that really started right here.

Agreed. The short passing game is how teams get down the field now adays. The key positions are:

• Slot receivers
• TEs
• RBs out of the backfield.

These are the positions that facilitate a productive offense in getting down the field. We've got slot receivers. We have Vereen and hopefully White for effective RBs out of the backfield. TE is of course the biggest question mark.

 

[lurker1965]

We also have two special teamers that nominally are Wide Receivers. Yes, yes, Julian Edelman is a decent WR, but slot WR are a dime a dozen and Punt Returners are, well, not gold, maybe copper or something. The other is Slater who is apparently a good blocker but not a great WR. That would mean 4 are real WRs (not counting Julian "Break glass in case of emergency" Edelman.)

Agreed. The short passing game is how teams get down the field now adays. The key positions are:

• Slot receivers
• TEs
• RBs out of the backfield.

These are the positions that facilitate a productive offense in getting down the field. We've got slot receivers. We have Vereen and hopefully White for effective RBs out of the backfield. TE is of course the biggest question mark.

Slot receivers also tend to break - nothing personal just when the 190 pound guy gets hit repeatedly by the 240 pound guy it tends to add up. The "extra" players will be used. Heck we might be calling CFLers and/or guys we cut before all is done.

Depth is not only on your roster anymore. A good GM in season (the coach is busy) is important.

 

[Ring 6]

Im pretty sure many other teams carried 4 RBs on their roster and many have already carried 6 WRs.
Not sure why this would be considered BB being years ahead of others.

 

[lurker1965]

I totally get your point, and it rings true. RB's and WR's are just not as tough in this era. We used to complain about Terry Glenn being scratched for hangnails and hat-head. He was the exception. Every minor injury is a huge deal now and the guy has to sit. It's ridiculous. These guys are (excuse the French) ******. Nowadays it has to be RB AND WR by commitee, because these (excuse the French) ****** aren't everyday guys and can't play through anything.

We are in the era of man-up and do your job has ended, with pampered mid-level talent who get big guaranteed money and will sit at the first sign of swamp-ass after an expensive meal and a couple of drinks at Davio's. No wonder BB has such disdain for these positions. There a bunch of momma's boys with no sack.

Wow I did not see that coming. I just think it's a matter of bigger faster defenders hitting faster shiftier players. In both cases speed makes the hits harder. Injuries are just bad luck. But we are seeing more in the nfl and I think the trend will continue. Muscles and tendons can only take so much. And we're at that limit. IMO.

Also It may seem that they sit with a hangnail, but I think in the NFL today even if you're at 95%, your backup is better at 100%. And coaches have realized this. So we're seeing players sit with once minor injuries. And hey, you got those 6 other guys ready on the bench, so might as well play em.

What pdangle said.

I used to think that way, but modern guys are not female genitalia. If a guy gets a hangnail and is at 99% and the guy behind him is at 100% and now better, only an idiot would demand the 99% "Frenchman" play through the pain.
I'm glad our coach is not a macho idiot.
BTW, modern <cough> steroids <cough> training techniques have increased the size and speed of them and the guys hitting them.

Jack Labert, HOFer with the Steelers was 220 pounds. That was huge back then. Now it is a Strong Safety who needs to add some muscle.

 

[mgteich]

The Patriots have carried 3 RB's since at least 2004. We started carrying a FB in 2006. In 2009, we went to a total of 5, primarily because of the injury factor at the position. The roster of other teams doesn't seem very different. The change was not Belichick's. It was the move away from one dominant running back, and toward RB by committee, AND of course the changes in rules giving us a game more oriented toward passing. The only reason that the Patriots moved to 5 running backs was that they were carrying the three oldest running backs in the NFL.

The Patriots carried 6 receivers in 2004. This has been the norm (usually including one or two special teamers). To me it makes little sense to carry an extra wide receiver simply because there is little difference in skill among the receivers [even if this were true]. We don't need more than four receivers. The #5 WR and #6 WR positions are for players who play special teams. I could see us carrying only FOUR wide receivers if the special teamers were from other positions. As it is we have Slater, Edelman and Boyce all expected to be major factors on special teams.

It does seem strange to be talking about how we need to carry 5 running backs in our passing league, but that's the way it is. Also, we might use the Practice Squad better for running back and wide receivers. We don't seem to bring up many to the 53 during the season.

 

[Ring 6]

The patriots have carried 3 RB's since at least 2004. We started carrying a FB in 2006. In 2009, we went to a total of 5, primarily because of the injury factor at the position. The roster of other teams doesn't seem very different. The change was not Belichick's. It was the move away from one dominant running back, and toward RB by committee, AND of course the changes in rules giving us a game more oriented toward passing. The only reason that the patriots moved to 5 running backs was that they were carrying the three oldest running backs in the NFL.

The patriots carried 6 receivers in 2004. This has been the norm (usually including one or two special teamers). To me it makes little sense to carry an extra wide receiver simply because there is little difference in skill among the receivers [even if this were true]. We don't need more than four receivers. The #5 WR and #6 WR positions are for players who play special teams. I could see us carrying only FOUR wide receivers if the special teamers were from other positions. As it is we have Slater, Edelman and Boyce all expected to be major factors on special teams.

It does seem strange to be talking about how we need to carry 5 running backs in our passing league, but that's the way it is. Also, we might use the Practice Squad better for running back and wide receivers. We don't seem to bring up many to the 53 during the season.

We arent going to carry 5 RBs. We may only carry 3.

 

[mgteich]

We arent going to carry 5 RBs. We may only carry 3.

Are you including fullbacks as running backs?

In any case, the last time that we started with fewer than 5 FB/RB was 2008.

And yes, I understand that we can carry two running backs on the Practice Squad.

In any case, I don't think that we will go into the season with 2 running backs in their contract year plus a rookie, with no backups. Bolden (or the UDFA who beats him out) is an inexpensive insurance policy.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you including fullbacks as running backs?

No, it is a different position.

In any case, the last time that we started with fewer than 5 FB/RB was 2008.

I dont think this is correct. We kept 5 RBs in 2009, then 4 and a FB last year. In between the only time we kept 5 was 2011 when Faulk was on the roster but coming back from injury.

And yes, I understand that we can carry two running backs on the Practice Squad.

In any case, I don't think that we will go into the season with 2 running backs in their contract year plus a rookie, with no backups. Bolden (or the UDFA who beats him out) is an inexpensive insurance policy.

We won't keep Brandon Bolden because of the contract status of Ridley and Vereen. In other words fear of having to rebuild the position next year won't be assuaged by having Brandon Bolden on the roster.

That said, given that if we keep only 3 either Bolden or a rookie would be a heartbeat away from an important role definitely would make me want to keep both. But given that we may have 2 on the pracitce squad keeping only 3 is a possibility.

 

[rookBoston]

I don't think the point is that BB was the first to carry 4 RB or 6WR...I expect that may not strictly speaking be true under scrutiny (e.g. I randomly looked up the 2004 Week One roster, and we carried 6 WRs that year: Brown, Branch, Givens, Patten, Bethel Johnson, PK Sam). The deeper point of OP is that BB may be the first to carry quality depth with the expectation that they will all play meaningful roles and contribute to the team.

To me, this isn't as much about the RB or WR positions-- you could say the same about the tremendous depth at CB and QB this year-- as it is BB's philosophy of building a roster. He believes in investing in a roster that is a full 53 quality players deep... and actually probably closer to 60-65 players deep if you include PS and the Shadow Roster. Most GMs focus on optimizing their starting 22 players and stacking the rest of the roster with JAGs.

BB is unusual in his willingness to spend money and cap space and draft picks to improve the talent level of his 48th and 49th player, often at the expense of what he can pay his starting-22. But, he's pretty unapologetic about it. Examples:

- drafting Garropolo
- drafting Marcus Cannon with no need
- drafting James White with three starters ahead of him
- giving LaFell guaranteed money just to compete

or further back

- signing the Hooman even when he thought he had Gronk and Hernandez as fixtures for the long haul
- letting Welker walk in Free Agency
- drafting Hightower in the first round with Mayo and Spikes already at the spot
- drafting Nate Solder in first round and also re-signing Matt Light that offseason... (remember: Solder took snaps at TE that year, amazing)

or further back

- signing Rodney even with Lawyer Milloy at the spot
- drafting scrawny Brady as #4 QB, even with Bledsoe at the spot and Michael Bishop as heir apparent

Somehow, in retrospect, these moves don't seem as surprising or controversial as maybe they were at the time... I think because they tend to work out for the best. BB plays a very long game in gathering talent.

 

[Brady6]

2013
Ridley
Vereen
Blount
Bolden
Washington

2012
Ridley
Woodhead
Vereen
Bolden

2011
Green-Ellis
Woodhead
Ridley
Vereen
Faulk

2010
Green-Ellis
Woodhead
Taylor
Morris
Faulk

2009
Maroney
Morris
Taylor
Faulk
Green-Ellis

 

[patfanken]

I think you have to count any FB as a RB. And again the strict designation of players as 3rd down backs vs RB's vs FB's is going to be blurred more this season. Vareen was drafted to be more than just a "3rd down back". We saw a glimpse of his potential in last year's Buffalo game before he broke his wrist. Also I think we might see Ridley used more in the passing game this year, especially in dump offs.

I worry about the rookie in this aspect, pass blocking. He's not going to get on the field unless BB is convinced he is an adequate and effective pass blocking. More and more defenses are devising ways to pressure up the middle. This means that RB's are becoming more integral and important parts of the pass blocking schemes. I will want to wait and see how well he blocks before worrying about how well he catches or runs. This goes double for the Binkie known as Roy Finch.

Given the loss of a roster spot to the QB position, they will be precious this year. RB, IMHO would seem to be one of the areas we can go into the season a bit thin in order to protect a guy we want to keep in another area. Since RB's have become so replaceable, I can see us keeping only 3 plus Devlin, because even if they show up well, UDFA's like Finch and Hunter would make it to the PS. By going with only Vareen, Ridley, White and Devlin (assuming Josh wants a FB on the team this yea); it will allow BB to keep a 10th OLman, DLman, or that 6th WR.

And while we might not like to think about it, given his cap hit and lack of position flexibility, isn't time to start to wonder if its time to think about whether Matthew Slater's spot on the roster shouldn't be etched in stone.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just picking one team based upon other threads currently going here, and beginning in 1990:

49ers carried 5 RBs in 1991 and moved forward with 5 or 6 for years.

I then took a look at the 'chuck and duck' Oilers, and they were carrying 8 WRs in 1994.

There's not much new under the sun.

 

[OhExaulted1]

Just picking one team based upon other threads currently going here, and beginning in 1990:

49ers carried 5 RBs in 1991 and moved forward with 5 or 6 for years.

I then took a look at the 'chuck and duck' Oilers, and they were carrying 8 WRs in 1994.

There's not much new under the sun.

BB didn't necessarily re-invent the wheel here, but when Brady came in and he started having him throw those quick outs to Troy Brown that was something I never saw with Bledsoe, or around the league for that matter. Get the ball into a playmakers hands was the idea.

Essentially it's like tossing a pitch-out to a RB, which was common place then but rarely seen in today's NFL. It is a copycat league and screen passes and quick outs have become more of the rule then the exception since '01.

I'm respectfully disagreeing with your post in writing because that red "X" under your post gives it that "Survey Says!" fail from Family Fued type of feel, and it's kind of annoying.

 

[AzPatsFan]

To my recent knowledge BB was the first coach to go 4 deep at RB. Seems ordinary now, but remember back 5-6 years when many teams still went with a 1 RB, and you'd even see 3-4 even 5 RBs drafted in the first round. The season I'm thinking of, If I'm not mistaken, BJGE was last man on the depth chart, and as fate would have it NE needed all 4 of them and BJGE too by seasons end. They all went down at some point two at a time. So BB came up roses that season, when many of us in August where like 4RBs?, that's two roster spots for my binkies damn you. But BB got burnt the year before with crazy injuries to the 2 barely 3 deep RB corps I recall, and now with 4, it couldn't of worked out better. So I think this was the moment BB made a major shift in his roster construction. Off track, but yet again, we see BB years ahead of the curve. 3-4 RBs is now commonplace in today's NFL. But again not the point of this post. Soooooo...I was looking over our WR depth chart, and we really have 6 guys that are all pretty fungible talent wise. I think BB sees now what he saw with RBs, injury attrition erodes WR depth in today's NFL as surely as sands through the hourglass, so are the days... Or something like that. It's pretty much like death and taxes. Inevitable. You will lose players over a long run of seasons. Sometimes a bunch. You may get lucky a season or two, e.g. see tRex Ryan's paper thin NYJ skate injury free during their recent two AFC "Championship game" seasons, and then what happened in year 3 when it finally caught up to them. And that was just a normal season of injuries IMO. Again not the point here, but just some back story I guess to my point, which will soon be made. I think we're seeing a shift, that, aside from a few dominant receivers, which BB can't get his hands on thru the draft or in FA bc they are completely overvalued in his opinion, he's going with the 6-man all-fungible #2a receiving corps. Train then to run the proper routes. And you'll never have a problem replacing any of them. At least compared to a dynamic #1 that is. Maybe the days of a 1,2,3 WRs is over in the NFL. Were looking at a trend of 6 deep. Easier to acquire, easier to replace, more resilient, and overall over the course of a typical season, more productive than when your top heavy 1,2, or 3 guy or guys get hurt, and your stuck with a 2,5 and a 6. While with NE we still got a 2a, 2a and 2a.

I heartedly concur with your observations.

BB recognized early that with the CAP, it would not extend to a team of All-Pros. It was almost hysterical to see other coaches try to square the circle, or find the appropriate combinations of Superstar positions, thta were affordable, that would work. They all failed.

BB found that 47-60 merely competent or good players all around, would "out endure" those "loaded" teams of 10 superstars and the balance of the roster affordable scrubs, in a possible 19 game season.

It works too, even with an extraordinary number of IRed stars as occurred last season.