Day 3 Observations from Reiss

[Dingleberry]

Well, the most obvious answer is that he's not good enough for the team to give him more.



Edelman has been WWW's backup. I've been saying that for years.



.

No, the most obvious answer is your 2nd line. He is Welker's backup. Welker does not leave the field. If we lose Welker, Edelman can step in, and the offense can carry on without altering its style.

You do not value the position of Welker understudy. OK, that is fair. I prefer that value.

 

[Dingleberry]

Need to look at istthrough a different lens, Dingle. All roster moves are intertwined. The projected loss of WW does not guarantee a roster spot for JE. Its all managed risk and personnel that they deem as being able to produce. If WW goes down, TB now needs to operate more out of a 2TE/2WR package with Lloyd/Gaffney or Stallworth set OR a 3TE (Fells, Gronk, AH) /2 WR set.

My point: This team has a ridiculous number of options in the passing game that while losing WW would hurt, using Edelman just because he plays the slot instead of the other players I mentioned doesn't make sense.

Fair point. I just disagree.

Losing Welker in the playoffs would require us to change the offense quite a bit if there was no Edelman.

Since he is a good to very good punt returner, to me it is worth the roster spot.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, the most obvious answer is your 2nd line. He is Welker's backup. Welker does not leave the field. If we lose Welker, Edelman can step in, and the offense can carry on without altering its style.

You do not value the position of Welker understudy. OK, that is fair. I prefer that value.

I've defended Edelman as Welker's backup, in the past, and I will continue to do that moving forward unless/until he gets cut or traded. I'm simply looking at the the past and the present, and looking at what it might mean.

Lloyd
Welker
Gaffney
Slater

Branch

Edelman
Stallworth
Ebert
Davis

What comes out of that third group depends on how they play and how many BB decides to keep, IMO.

 

[Dingleberry]

I've defended Edelman as Welker's backup, in the past, and I will continue to do that moving forward unless/until he gets cut or traded. I'm simply looking at the present and looking at what's there. You seem unable to do so.

I seem unable to look at the present because I have a different opinion? Nice ego.

We disagree on the value of having a backup to Welker. That is all.

If Welker pulls a Gronk in the Super Bowl this year, I will be glad to have Edelman on the roster. Probably won't happen. But he's a good punt returner too, so it is not a wasted roster spot.

Since I think we are carrying 7 WR this year (Lloyd, Welker, Gaffney, Brance, Stallworth, Slater, Edelman), who is this 53rd player more valuable than a solid punt returner and an understudy for Welker?

 

[Dingleberry]

Lloyd
Welker
Gaffney
Slater

Branch

Edelman
Stallworth
Ebert
Davis

What comes out of that third group depends on how they play and how many BB decides to keep, IMO.

I have Lloyd and Gaffney as outside locks.
Welker, obviously.
Edelman and Slater as special teams guys who can play WR
And I think Stallworth and Branch both make it--although it is between them for the final spot IF they only keep 6.

Ebert - PS

 

[Deus Irae]

I seem unable to look at the present because I have a different opinion? Nice ego.

We disagree on the value of having a backup to Welker. That is all.

No, because you went straight to the backup issue and didn't look at the rest.

If Welker pulls a Gronk in the Super Bowl this year, I will be glad to have Edelman on the roster. Probably won't happen. But he's a good punt returner too, so it is not a wasted roster spot.

It's not about a wasted spot. It's about whether BB thinks that spot should be used elsewhere. There will be tough cuts that need to be made this season.

Since I think we are carrying 7 WR this year (Lloyd, Welker, Gaffney, Brance, Stallworth, Slater, Edelman), who is this 53rd player more valuable than a solid punt returner and an understudy for Welker?

I've been calling for 7 WRs, including Edelman, so you're not even differing with me there (I've been less enthusiastic about Stallworth than about Edelman, as a matter of fact). This is sort of my point. I don't disagree that Edelman has value. I just see reasons that would help explain why BB might choose to go in another direction.

 

[shmessy]

Since I think we are carrying 7 WR this year (Lloyd, Welker, Gaffney, Brance, Stallworth, Slater, Edelman), who is this 53rd player more valuable than a solid punt returner and an understudy for Welker?

For this reason, I'd like to forego the FB roster spot and somehow develop a REAL OLineman to be able to longsnap.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Fair point. I just disagree.

Losing Welker in the playoffs would require us to change the offense quite a bit if there was no Edelman. .

Thats the point, Dingle. The offensive system will not change. No matter the personnel packages, Gronk, AH, Stallworth, Branch, Gaffney, Fells, Shank, Lloyd, etc. will just play more.

Since he is a good to very good punt returner, to me it is worth the roster spot.

Thats the million dollar question. Who can replace Edelman's production in the KR/PR game. I agree its very important.

 

[shmessy]

1.) Stop trolling. I'm still not biting.

2.) Go reread the posts. You seem to have missed something....

Quote:
3.) 2011 Gronk was not around until 2011. Edelman's been around since 2009.

Yes, and 2010 Edelman was not spending most of the practices learning how to be a cornerback so as to save the season for the team due to the sorry-arse condition of the secondary.

You wrote: "That doesn't mean that I should be blindly supportive of him and his past/future. He had 117 of 1134 offensive snaps in 2011
and just 4 catches, despite the team really having only 2 WRs. Only the most clueless of homers would insist that was meaningless."


Golly gee, Mr. Deus, I guess there could never be any other reason for Edelman to play only 10% of the offensive last year, could there?????

So, are you REALLY going to continue your out of context statistical arguments that don't fog anyone's glasses on this forum? Everyone here knows what Edelman did for the team last year, and everyone sees right through your throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

 

[Dingleberry]

No, because you went straight to the backup issue and didn't look at the rest.

.

The rest is pretty much understood.

I went straight to the backup issue because I think it is more important than most. Losing Gronk in the SB has me even more sensitive to losing such an important piece to the offense. Edelman lessens the potential loss of Welker.

Sure, if he wasn't a solid special teamer, you could not keep such a player. But he is. And Belichick certainly will.

 

[Dingleberry]

Thats the point, Dingle. The offensive system will not change. No matter the personnel packages, Gronk, AH, Stallworth, Branch, Gaffney, Fells, Shank, Lloyd, etc. will just play more.


Thats the million dollar question. Who can replace Edelman's production in the KR/PR game. I agree its very important.

Oh, I think the offense changes a lot if the Welker role is eliminated. Edelman, though not the overall WR of the other guys, is the closest thing to Welker they have.

And please, call me Mr. Berry until we know each other better. Usually only my close friends call me Dingle.

 

[patfanken]

Thats what I keep going back and forth over, patfanken. I also think that Branch is in the fight of his life. Only reason I see him as not as much of a bubble player as JE is his positional flexiibility at WR (outside, inside, etc.). With that said the ST game is highly valued by BB and I don't intend to discount it.

On THAT point we do disagree. I don't see Branch as ANYTHING but an outside the numbers receiver. When was the last pass you saw him catch in the middle of the field or short. He's strictly an intermediate outside receiver who thrives against soft zone defenses (see the Jags)....which unfortunately we don't see much anymore.

 

[RobertWeathers]

For this reason, I'd like to forego the FB roster spot and somehow develop a REAL OLineman to be able to longsnap.

I've always wondered why Connolly could not add the duty as the LS. The guy can operate out of the shotgun and make the runs on the coverage team with ease.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, and 2010 Edelman was not spending most of the practices learning how to be a cornerback so as to save the season for the team due to the sorry-arse condition of the secondary.

You wrote: "That doesn't mean that I should be blindly supportive of him and his past/future. He had 117 of 1134 offensive snaps in 2011
and just 4 catches, despite the team really having only 2 WRs. Only the most clueless of homers would insist that was meaningless."


Golly gee, Mr. Deus, I guess there could never be any other reason for Edelman to play only 10% of the offensive last year, could there?????

So, are you REALLY going to continue your out of context statistical arguments that don't fog anyone's glasses on this forum? Everyone here knows what Edelman did for the team last year, and everyone sees right through your throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

He only played in 17% of the 2010 snaps...

Now, I'm done with your troll posts in this thread. You have a great night.

 

[Deus Irae]

The rest is pretty much understood.

But it's obviously not, since you're ignoring it when it's important enough that it should not be ignored.

I went straight to the backup issue because I think it is more important than most. Losing Gronk in the SB has me even more sensitive to losing such an important piece to the offense. Edelman lessens the potential loss of Welker.

Sure, if he wasn't a solid special teamer, you could not keep such a player. But he is. And Belichick certainly will.

He's safe with a 7 WR roster, IMO. If it's a 6 WR roster, he's not as safe. It's a numbers issue.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Oh, I think the offense changes a lot if the Welker role is eliminated. Edelman, though not the overall WR of the other guys, is the closest thing to Welker they have.

Its a terminology thing is what we are caught up with. When you say "offensive system" that like Republican vs Democrat. Scheme and playcalling are subsets of that. Its all comes down to putting the best players on the field.

And please, call me Mr. Berry until we know each other better. Usually only my close friends call me Dingle.

Ok.

 

[RobertWeathers]

On THAT point we do disagree. I don't see Branch as ANYTHING but an outside the numbers receiver. When was the last pass you saw him catch in the middle of the field or short. He's strictly an intermediate outside receiver who thrives against soft zone defenses (see the Jags)....which unfortunately we don't see much anymore.

I dont disagree. Branch is an outside of the numbers guy now. However I do see him as capable of running some of the routes WW currently does- thus being a potential backup.

 

[Dingleberry]

But it's obviously not, since you're ignoring it when it's important enough that it should not be ignored.

He's safe with a 7 WR roster, IMO. If it's a 6 WR roster, he's not as safe. It's a numbers issue.

Because I don't bring up the obvious does not mean I am ignoring it. I was really only focused on something I find a lot of importance in. Nothing more.

If there are 7 WR's (and I would bet on it), they are all safe.

If there are 6 WR, Branch and Stallworth are fighting for the last spot. And I think Stallworth gets the spot.

That would give you 4 WR who see the field regularly, 2 special teams guys (Edelman and Slater). When you add Hernandez to the mix as essentially a 5th WR option, we think that Belichick would value a SIXTH receiver option over a solid special teams contributor??? Not the Belichick I have been watching.

 

[Deus Irae]

Because I don't bring up the obvious does not mean I am ignoring it. I was really only focused on something I find a lot of importance in. Nothing more.

If there are 7 WR's (and I would bet on it), they are all safe.

If there are 6 WR, Branch and Stallworth are fighting for the last spot. And I think Stallworth gets the spot.

That would give you 4 WR who see the field regularly, 2 special teams guys (Edelman and Slater). When you add Hernandez to the mix as essentially a 5th WR option, we think that Belichick would value a SIXTH receiver option over a solid special teams contributor??? Not the Belichick I have been watching.

You post as if Edelman's the only ST contributor on the team. He's not. And Stallworth's been working on STs, too.

Again, I've got Welker and Lloyd as locks (Slater, too, if you list him at WR), Gaffney as a near-lock, and Branch as a player with an edge over the rest.

That leaves Edelman, Stallworth, Ebert and Davis likely vying for 1-2 spots. I'd call Edelman the favorite, particularly with Ebert's offseason issues, but I could see where the team might go in another direction.

 

[mayoclinic]

This tidbid from Curran had me a bit giddy:

Postcards from Camp: Day 3

My God. Sounds like Hulk vs. the Abomination:

The Abomination wrecks some more havoc:

Ivan Fears might have gotten the worst of it on that drill when Dont'a Hightower bullrushed Eric Kettani, hooked his facemask and launched him into the running backs coach. Fears went toppling to the ground. Words were exchanged.

Patriots training camp notes: Day 4