Camp Battles: Update Pre-season Game 1

[bradmahn]

If we were talking about chess pieces, I would absolutely agree with you and mgteich. Take Alexander for instance. Say he is #4 on the ILB depth chart (and even worse if you include Tank and Rodney in the equation) and behind Izzo, Woods, etc. for a ST role, it would be hard to get him gameday active without some kind of injury.

You see an inactive Alexander providing solid depth. I see a 26 year old player in a contract year not getting any game action to improve his skills and demonstrate his abilities for potential future employers. Anyone would think that arrangement sucked and I don't think Belichick would do that to a veteran player. Same for Jordan or Aiken.

That is why I see the 8 inactive spots as needing special consideration for non-developmental players. Telling a veteran player not to dress for a game repeatedly will result in an unhappy player, a sucky locker room presence and likely uneven performances when he does happen to get playing time.

Come week three, the projected camp inactive spots will be meaningless. At that point, there are injuries to players that force the inactives into playing time.

That, combined with varying gameplans and schemes, means that you need the inactives to be fungible and able to replace others. Being inactive one week sucks, but that can change so easily by the next I don't think Belichick would hurt his team's chances of winning because Eric Alexander may be unhappy with his playing time to begin the year.

You can't fill up spots 46-53 with players who are developmental or only useful on special teams - they need to be able to step in and help the offense and defense if need be.

 

[Metaphors]

You can't fill up spots 46-53 with players who are developmental or only useful on special teams - they need to be able to step in and help the offense and defense if need be.

Can you come up with names of vets that have stuck with the Pats at the backend of the roster in recent years? Not trying to be a smartass, I legitimately can't think of any. About all I can come up with is Jonathan Sullivan but he was a shot in the dark just trying to salvage his career. I'll buy what you're selling if there are examples to back it up.

 

[mgteich]

So your plan is to keep two TE's, one off a a major injury and to have sign a street free agent or a schoolteacher if one of them is injured during the season? I'd rather keep a 3rd TE who can play special teams, or perhaps one who is a solid blcoking TE. If we were building a 45 man roster, I would not include 3 TE's.

Two TEs are, and what part of having two tight ends doesn't allow for you to use two TEs in the game?

For the bulk of last season the Patriots suited up only two tight ends on gamedays. Entering December, they were content with Watson and Kyle Brady as the only two TEs on the roster. It wasn't until injuries to both of those players did they sign Spach (who was substituting at a school when he got the call). Even after that signing, from the middle of December to February, all three TEs played on gameday once, in the Championship game, and Spach, the third tight end, played eight snaps that day. From December on, when they went to three tight ends or more they either brought in Mike Vrabel, Ryan O'Callaghan, or Wesley Britt.

I don't think there's much to disagree with concerning their recent usage of the third tight end.

I didn't call for Izzo being cut the last several seasons but even if I was, that has nothing to do with my thinking right now. Izzo, when he was the best special teamer on the Patriots, was worth his singular role. He's no longer the best special teamer and I feel there are at least three other players who are better than he is as well as providing a backup in another area of the game. That's the only reason I feel he shouldn't make this team.

 

[Pats726]

Stupar, Spach, Pollard, these are guys who will be available in a pinch whether they're on the 53 or not. Stupar and Spach, I believe, can be stashed on the practice squad with very little risk of being snatched up by another team, and if they are, there are always loads of marginal blocking, very limited receiving tight ends to be found on the street (just look at Spach and Marcellus last season). They don't warrant a spot on the fifty three just because they play tight end.
Tight end, in this offense, isn't as important as it was two seasons ago, so attempting to justify a roster spot for a marginal player because of what the Patriots have "historically" done just doesn't cut it... with me, at least.

So...in less than 5% of the games in the last 6 years they started a game with only 2 TEs on the roster of 53 and you think this "new offense"...will go against the way he has coached??? If it was a new head cocah with other philospophies yes...but I doubt he changes..THAT simple. It may not cut it with you..I think it cuts your credibility a whole lot...

 

[Pats726]

Can you come up with names of vets that have stuck with the Pats at the backend of the roster in recent years? Not trying to be a smartass, I legitimately can't think of any. About all I can come up with is Jonathan Sullivan but he was a shot in the dark just trying to salvage his career. I'll buy what you're selling if there are examples to back it up.

07---Mel Mitchell, Troy Brown, Chad Brown 06--Jonathon Sullivan, Gene Mruczkowski 05---Ross tucker, Chad Brown (this year MOST inavtives were related to injuries...) 04---Gene Mruczkowski, Antwain Harris, Jed Weaver 03---Mike Cloud, Anthony Pleasant, Wilbert Brown, Rick Lyle, JJ Stokes, Anrwain Harris

 

[Pats726]

We do disagree with regard to the construction of the 45 man roster, the place for STers, and the place for veteran backups.

1) The composition of the 45 man roster changes every week, and NOT only because of injuries. Different offensive and defensive game plans will cause a slightly different mix of active and inactive players. For example, when we play Favre we will have exactly zero inactive defensive backs. Some offensive game plans require an extra TE, or RB or WR; some require one fewer.

SO SO true...there are some players that are brought in as well....

2) There shouldn't be more than one STer on the inactive squad. Guys like Spann are either active or unemployed. My inactive squad will almost always have 2 DL's and 2 OL's. The rest depend on game plans and injuries.

I agree as well 2 OL/2 DL and QB..so that leaves only 3 if there are no injuries to non line players... I am thinking if they keep 5 RBs..one will be inactive every game..which would ONLY leave 2. ST players need to be ON the field..not inactive.

3) There is always room for a developmental player or perhaps two buried on the inactive squad. The real question is who do you want on the inactive roster to be activated next week in case of injury? Do you want a rookie who has never played, or do you want a veteran. Who would you rather have as your injury insurance policy? I believe my answer now and forever is that this is the role for a low-cost veteran.

True..one can hide a OL/DL..but I can not see them hiding ALl developmental players there...unless they ALSO play ST...

 

[bradmahn]

So your plan is to keep two TE's, one off a a major injury and to have sign a street free agent or a schoolteacher if one of them is injured during the season? I'd rather keep a 3rd TE who can play special teams, or perhaps one who is a solid blcoking TE. If we were building a 45 man roster, I would not include 3 TE's.

My point is, the players you are advocating to remain on the active squad, either Stupar or Spach (you did include Pollard in your 53, but he does neither of the two things you reference at the moment) are players who are available during the year or can very likely be stashed on the practice squad. If you need a third TE body in practice, use Stupar from the squad, or any other number of readily available TEs that are cut after Sept. 1. They aren't even backups on gameday, anyway.

So...in less than 5% of the games in the last 6 years they started a game with only 2 TEs on the roster of 53 and you think this "new offense"...will go against the way he has coached??? If it was a new head cocah with other philospophies yes...but I doubt he changes..THAT simple. It may not cut it with you..I think it cuts your credibility a whole lot...

I look at an offense last year that was vastly different than anything we've seen from the Patriots up until this point. That offense comes back nearly completely intact this season. Three true tight ends saw action in just three games last season and on two of those occasions the third tight end was a guy who was on the street, unemployed, at some point in the year (Rivers and Spach).

They opened the season last year with Kyle Brady, Benjamin Watson, and Dave Thomas (who was injured). Is there a third tight end currently on our roster who is as talented as either one of those players? Is it likely that any of the backup tight ends we currently have will be available in a pinch? That we could even put one on the practice squad and still use him as a practice body?

There is no sense in keeping a marginal third tight end when the offense rarely uses a real tight end when they go with three and when there are other players who offer more to this team.

Now try to tell me that three tight ends were important in '05 and that that has more predictive value for this team this year than 2007. Please.

 

[mgteich]

Let's try once again.

What is your plan if either Watson or Thomas is injured.
Isn't it to sign a street free agent or count or a Practice Squad player? And just BTW, I do prefer Pollard or a TE still to be signed, but I suspect that belichick prefers Spach.

My point is, the players you are advocating to remain on the active squad, either Stupar or Spach (you did include Pollard in your 53, but he does neither of the two things you reference at the moment) are players who are available during the year or can very likely be stashed on the practice squad. If you need a third TE body in practice, use Stupar from the squad, or any other number of readily available TEs that are cut after Sept. 1. They aren't even backups on gameday, anyway.



I look at an offense last year that was vastly different than anything we've seen from the Patriots up until this point. That offense comes back nearly completely intact this season. Three true tight ends saw action in just three games last season and on two of those occasions the third tight end was a guy who was on the street, unemployed, at some point in the year (Rivers and Spach).

They opened the season last year with Kyle Brady, Benjamin Watson, and Dave Thomas (who was injured). Is there a third tight end currently on our roster who is as talented as either one of those players? Is it likely that any of the backup tight ends we currently have will be available in a pinch? That we could even put one on the practice squad and still use him as a practice body?

There is no sense in keeping a marginal third tight end when the offense rarely uses a real tight end when they go with three and when there are other players who offer more to this team.

Now try to tell me that three tight ends were important in '05 and that that has more predictive value for this team this year than 2007. Please.

 

[bradmahn]

Let's try once again.

What is your plan if either Watson or Thomas is injured.
Isn't it to sign a street free agent or count or a Practice Squad player? And just BTW, I do prefer Pollard or a TE still to be signed, but I suspect that belichick prefers Spach.

My answer hasn't changed.

Last season the third tight end was inactive (or not on the team at all) more often than not. I don't see Spach or Pollard or Stupar being a part of the 45 this season anyway, so if either Thomas or Watson are injured, in game, they would provide nothing more as backups than if they were on the street and signed on Monday.

Stupar, Spach, Pollard, they are interchangeable, dime-a-dozen backup tight ends. Spach, one of the most common choices as third tight end out of camp, was available on the street in December last season.

Look at what they did with Rivers last season. I see no reason why Spach can't or won't be the same thing in '08.

 

[Pats726]

I look at an offense last year that was vastly different than anything we've seen from the Patriots up until this point. That offense comes back nearly completely intact this season. Three true tight ends saw action in just three games last season and on two of those occasions the third tight end was a guy who was on the street, unemployed, at some point in the year (Rivers and Spach).

I am not sure what you mean by 3 TEs seeing action in only 3 games.. There were 5 occasions that 3 TEs were on the 45...Buff home..Cinci.. Dallas...and the Jacksnvlle, SD playoff games..(also in the Mia Home game only 1 active...as Watson, Brady injured..) .You are correct their offenses did not use 3 much..but they still carried 3 MOST of the season. That Spach was key in the Jets game as a blocker.

They opened the season last year with Kyle Brady, Benjamin Watson, and Dave Thomas (who was injured). Is there a third tight end currently on our roster who is as talented as either one of those players? Is it likely that any of the backup tight ends we currently have will be available in a pinch? That we could even put one on the practice squad and still use him as a practice body?

It's NOT really about picking a TE up in a pinch..it will depend on if they will be running more this year..if they are most definitely a 3rd end will be kept on the 53.

There is no sense in keeping a marginal third tight end when the offense rarely uses a real tight end when they go with three and when there are other players who offer more to this team.

THAT is the team''s decision..even last year with a "vastly different" offense they had 3 on the roster MOST of the year...75%.

Now try to tell me that three tight ends were important in '05 and that that has more predictive value for this team this year than 2007. Please.

I wouldn't even try to..or waste my time..

 

[bradmahn]

I am not sure what you mean by 3 TEs seeing action in only 3 games.. There were 5 occasions that 3 TEs were on the 45...Buff home..Cinci.. Dallas...and the Jacksnvlle, SD playoff games..(also in the Mia Home game only 1 active...as Watson, Brady injured..) .You are correct their offenses did not use 3 much..but they still carried 3 MOST of the season. That Spach was key in the Jets game as a blocker.
It's NOT really about picking a TE up in a pinch..it will depend on if they will be running more this year..if they are most definitely a 3rd end will be kept on the 53.

THAT is the team''s decision..even last year with a "vastly different" offense they had 3 on the roster MOST of the year...75%.
I wouldn't even try to..or waste my time..

David Thomas was active in the Cincy game, but saw no plays on offense (granted, he left the game with an injury). Against Jacksonville, Spach was active but didn't play. Even so, because of injuries, ineffectiveness or game plan, the third tight end was inactive or not on the roster 14 out of 19 games. When the top two were healthy they saw snaps in just three games. Three! Is that really worth a roster spot?

I'm banging my head against a wall here, but Spach was signed from the street to overcome injuries to the two starting tight ends (Watson first and then Brady). Rivers was jerked around first to overcome the injury to Thomas and then Watson was injured against Dallas. When Watson returned and they had two healthy tight ends, they dumped him. Why aren't they going to do the same when they have a healthy David Thomas and Benjamin Watson to begin this season?

If they had a blocking tight end of Kyle Brady's calibre or a third tight end like they had in David Thomas last year, I'd be all for keeping three. But, to me, Stupar, Spach and Pollard are all guys that are inferior to the three tight ends New England was willing to keep coming out of last season's training camp. They aren't worth having on the team simply for the fact that they are a third tight end because they (or someone just like them) can be found in case of emergency. They aren't the kind of depth for whom you cut a Sam Aiken or Lamont Jordan or even a Larry Izzo.