Do We NEED Five Running Backs?

[Avenger]

I apportion a large amount of that to the play-calling and Josh McDaniels. He really needs to include our backs in the passing game to a far greater degree.

He has inconsistent hands as a pass catcher.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

I wonder if Blount could find a role as at least a part time full back.

Blount is 6'1" 245

Tony Fiammetta is 6'0" 250
Spencer Larsen is 6'2" 245
Lousaka Polite is 6'0 246

So, he fits into the size frame they've typically looked at for fullbacks (these are just the guys I could recall, probably missed some.) Perhaps a little positional versatility on Blount's part will allow the Patriots to keep more RB's on the roster.

I think it's more likely they choose to keep tight ends on the roster instead of RB, and have one of them take snaps as fullback in I formation runs. I can recall Hooman filling this role on occasion last year.

 

[DocHoliday]

The people hoping hell be a good short yardage back are ignoring the fact that its just not something he's historically been good at.

Perhaps Bill can drill in ball security and a lower pad level but its likely hes here to battle out Bolden and nothing more.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I am not sure that Leon Washington is really in the plans at the running back position any more than Matthew Slater is in the plans at the WR position.

He is here to play special teams as a return specialist but probably other ST roles as well.

Which leaves us with 4 running backs, each with different running styles and builds.

 

[IllegalContact]

it's May......deciding now which RB's should be there at the end of August is at best..........silly

 

[hwc]

With Belichick's fondness for shifty multi-purpose 3rd down backs (like Kevin Faulk), it's hard to believe that he isn't at least exploring the idea of some snaps on offense for Leon Washington. If anything, Washington has some home-run potential that Belichick has never had in a 3rd down specialist. If Washington makes the first guy miss on a screen or a passing down draw play, he's gone....

 

[DaBruinz]

We don't NEED five running backs.

However, as analysts keep on reminding us, no running back should be expected to complete the season with injuries. More than any other position, running backs get injured.

Keeping only four RB's does allow us a 9th OL. However, our 9th and 10th OL are often on the Practice Squad attending Dante's Academy.

The bottom line is that carrying 5 RB's provides needed insurance at the position.

The Pats have regularly carried 9 OL on the active roster. The only times they haven't is when they have had injury issues at both the O-line and other positions and felt the need to fill that other position first.

It is erroneous thinking to believe that the #5 RB slot is keeping them from carrying a 9th O-line when they have done that in the past. The situation is a lot more complicated than that.

 

[DaBruinz]

The accusation of Blount indicates the possibility that Bolden is potentially a little more injured than we have been led on to believe...plus the fact that BB always brings in players to create competition at particular positions

I think you mean acquisition, not accusation. And, where did you hear that Bolden was injured?? Bolden was in the doghouse from his drug suspension.

 

[eagle eye]

I remember a couple of seasons back when Faulk, Maroney and Taylor were all injured and it was left up to Morris and an unknown udfa called Ben Jarvus Green-Ellis to carry the load.

We certainly need five running backs imo.

 

[DaBruinz]

Our "star" RB is a one dimensional powerback like BJGE. Name me one other starting RB that just had 5 receptions. Furthermore, he was one of the worse starting RBs in the league the second half of the season.

I realize I'm in the minority here, but calling Ridley a "star" is a joke. He is an above average RB with no receiving threat. He may of been 7th in rushing yardage, but he was 11th in total yards (rushing and receiving).

OMG.. he was only 11th in Total Yards???? That's just HORRIBLE, I tell you. HORRIBLE..

What is a joke is that you claim Ridley isn't a receiving threat, but ignore the fact that he'd be the 5th receiver on any passing play out there because the Pats have Gronk, Hernandez, Edelman, and one of Dobson, Boyce, or Jones ahead of him. That doesn't make Ridley bad. It just means that the others are that good..

 

[DaBruinz]

I apportion a large amount of that to the play-calling and Josh McDaniels. He really needs to include our backs in the passing game to a far greater degree.

Here are the number of Receptions to RBs under McDaniels:
2005: 74
2006: 89
2007: 62
2012: 56

Here are the number of receptions to RB under O'Brien:
2009: 74
2010: 61
2011: 37

They both trend downward, but McDaniels still used the RB more than O'Brien. The reason for the trend downwards? In 2007, they Added Moss and Welker. In 2010, they added Gronkowski and Hernandez.

I think 50-70 receptions to RBs during the season, when you have the weapons of Gronk, Hernandez, Amendola, with the additions of Dobson, Boyce, Jones, Edelman and Ballard is about right..

 

[DaBruinz]

I remember a couple of seasons back when Faulk, Maroney and Taylor were all injured and it was left up to Morris and an unknown udfa called Ben Jarvus Green-Ellis to carry the load.

We certainly need five running backs imo.

I remember not to long ago when the Pats had to sign "Famous" Amos Zereoue and Mike "2 yards and a" Cloud as street free agents because Dillon, Faulk, and Pass were all hurt and they had to rely on Heath Evans to start a game..

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I remember not to long ago when the Pats had to sign "Famous" Amos Zereoue and Mike "2 yards and a" Cloud as street free agents because Dillon, Faulk, and Pass were all hurt and they had to rely on Heath Evans to start a game..

OTOH, now that the Patriots have decided to move away from RBBBUC*, I think they can get away with four on the 53-man roster, and one or two on the PS.

*Running Back By Banged-Up Committee

 

[RobertWeathers]

Here are the number of Receptions to RBs under McDaniels:
2005: 74
2006: 89
2007: 62
2012: 56

Here are the number of receptions to RB under O'Brien:
2009: 74
2010: 61
2011: 37

They both trend downward, but McDaniels still used the RB more than O'Brien. The reason for the trend downwards? In 2007, they Added Moss and Welker. In 2010, they added Gronkowski and Hernandez.

I think 50-70 receptions to RBs during the season, when you have the weapons of Gronk, Hernandez, Amendola, with the additions of Dobson, Boyce, Jones, Edelman and Ballard is about right..

I agree on the prediction. As you say its a combination of factors that determine how many throws are made to a RB. Certainly a guy like Kevin Faulk who had the ability to create favorable matchups out of the backfield and also has a great set of hands was a key cog in the offense- thus getting a bunch of catches in the process. In his decline during the BOB era, he stopped getting the ball as much thus reducing the # of catches.

Vereen and Washington have displayed the ability to operate in the pro-passing game so I would expect them to get their share of touches, but the majority of looks will go to Gronk, AH, Amendola and perhaps Edelman.

 

[SONS_OF_BELICHICK]

I see the pats carrying 5. its difficult to to have an effective running game if one or 2 of your RB get injured. Its a violent position...but we need depth there since we will be utilizing a 4 TE set often

 

[patsinthesnow]

OMG.. he was only 11th in Total Yards???? That's just HORRIBLE, I tell you. HORRIBLE..

What is a joke is that you claim Ridley isn't a receiving threat, but ignore the fact that he'd be the 5th receiver on any passing play out there because the Pats have Gronk, Hernandez, Edelman, and one of Dobson, Boyce, or Jones ahead of him. That doesn't make Ridley bad. It just means that the others are that good..

Woodhead had 40 receptions.

In fairness to Ridley, under BB, our main RB has never been a pass catcher, which is frustrating IMO. The most out of them (Ridley, BJGE, Maroney, Dillon, A. Smith) was Antowain Smith with 31 receptions for 243 yards in 2002. Instead, he uses a 3rd down RB to get the majority of the receiving work (Woodhead, Faulk).

Now, people may wonder, "what's the difference". I just feel we tip our hats to opponents with a designated receiving RB. How many times have Woodhead draws been sniffed out, knowing he was in the game. This has been a problem for us the last two years. If Woodhead was in, you knew we were going hurry up/shotgun passing attack. If Ridley/BJGE was in, you knew we were in bunches, pounding the rock or playaction. When was the last time we ran a RB screen with BJGE/Ridley in the game....?

I think our offense would benefit so much with a Ray Rice, Doug Martin, CJ Spiller type RB. That's probably what BB envisioned with Vereen.

 

[willard]

Obviously the running back screen was thought to be a less productive play than the others available.

Just a moe watching tv, but I think the running back screen is a little slow to set up and susceptible to negative yardage.

Bolden was a binky last year and it was nice to see him succeed and then heart breaking to get caught juicing. Hope he can make it without the juice. Observers complimented Bolden in camp last year for his pass catching-did not see it in the season, but hope it could emerge. I think he could earn time as a third down back-he has the build to be an effective blocker. Thought he had good field vision last year and that is especially important for third down backs.

If Vereen could remain healthy, there is not enough evidence so far to say whether he could be a primary back. Certainly many of his size and strength have succeeded.

At this point of the year it is good to have 5 backs that have had success in the NFL. In some ways it is only 4 backs as Washington's recent career has had little rushing and he has been a return specialist.

I would like to keep all 5, but then would we keep 4 tight ends?

 

[mgteich]

We are a long way from deciding the final roster spot. IMHO, if we keep 5 RB's, we would still keep 4 TE's. I think that the roster spot comes from the OL. We NEED seven players to be active each week; 2 of those are backups. We NEED one additional backup on the inactive roster. We can carry an additional 2-3 players on the Practice Squad.

I would like to keep all 5, but then would we keep 4 tight ends?

 

[willard]

I know Bolden was suspended and then played little after he came back, but don't know if he got his 9 games in or if he still has PS eligibility left.

MG you know more than I ever will about roster make ups. I was just saying if we keep 5, then someplace else will be cut. I really like the 5 we have now and would like to keep all of them, but that is a long ways off as you point out.

 

[mgteich]

Your analysis was fine. I was simply pointing out that if we need to keep five running backs, and I think we might, we will find the roster spot. The reality is that there are lots of roster spots at the bottom of the roster that are in flux every year.

I know Bolden was suspended and then played little after he came back, but don't know if he got his 9 games in or if he still has PS eligibility left.

MG you know more than I ever will about roster make ups. I was just saying if we keep 5, then someplace else will be cut. I really like the 5 we have now and would like to keep all of them, but that is a long ways off as you point out.