FB/HBack instead of 6th wide receiver

[mgteich]

We really have no need for a 6th WR. We do have a need for a pass-catching Hback/FB.

I think the #5 WR is now for Bethel Johnson and Childress to fight over, with the winner expected to make the team based on returner abilities.

 

[rookBoston]

We really have no need for a 6th WR. We do have a need for a pass-catching Hback/FB.

I think the #5 WR is now for Bethel Johnson and Childress to fight over, with the winner expected to make the team based on returner abilities.

There's really no such thing at a #6 WR. You can only ever put 5 on the field at once, and even if you go 5-wide, one of them would probably be Watson anyway.

#6 is really a ST spot-- particularly in the kicking game Tim Dwight (2005), Kevin Kasper (2004)-- and a WR backfill solely in case of injury. 80% ST and only 20% (at most) O. Last year, we kept Bethel or Dwight (depending on how you count it) at our 6th receiver. But neither saw serious time as a true receiver.

My point: the #6 WR roster spot could also just as easily be #5 CB, #5 RB, #4 TE. #5 S... very easily exchangable depending on where the talent falls out on the roster.

I'm fairly certain that the 2001 roster didn't carry a 6th WR: Brown, Patten, Charles Johnson and Fred Coleman... was there even a 5th receiver on the team? Dane Looker, maybe? The kicking duties fell to our #1 WR at the time: Troy Brown.

The roster is far deeper in talent now than is was then.

To me, the question comes down to whether you'd rather keep Patrick Pass or Bethel Johnson. The roster can work either way.

In the kicking game, Bethel will have competition from Moroney, Andrews, Jackson and Hobbs. Pass will have competition from Moroney, Mills, Mitchell, Tebucky. Personally, I think Bethel is on the outside looking in. (Of course, I'm giving the #5 spot to Childress, which is no sure thing, either).

 

[primetime]

I'm fairly certain that the 2001 roster didn't carry a 6th WR: Brown, Patten, Charles Johnson and Fred Coleman... was there even a 5th receiver on the team? Dane Looker, maybe? The kicking duties fell to our #1 WR at the time: Troy Brown.

Terry Glenn was on the roster, technically. And throughout the year, so too were Bert Emmanuel, Torrance Small, and Curtis Jackson. However, only 4 dressed for the Super Bowl. Faulk and Edwards were the 3rd and 4th leading receivers that year after Brown and Patten, followed by Wiggins I believe.

 

[mgteich]

rook,

To be more blunt, we only need THREE wide receivers active, plus a fourth, if one is a returner. I think the 5th receiver is a position for a returner or for a developmental player, because if he can't he return, he isn't active.

Yes, we usually have four active, because at least one is returning punts.

I think the PS is fine for developmental wide receivers.

 

[bucky]

You need 4 active WRs so you can still run your 3 WR sets if one of them gets hurt. So I think you're right on with what's been said in this thread - there have been times when we've carries 4 WRs on the 53 and the past couple of years we've been carrying 6. But 5 is probably the # we carry this year.

 

[ilduce06410]

6th WR of 9th DB--depends on the nfl's #1 variable

rook,
To be more blunt, we only need THREE wide receivers active, plus a fourth, if one is a returner. I think the 5th receiver is a position for a returner or for a developmental player, because if he can't he return, he isn't active.
Yes, we usually have four active, because at least one is returning punts.
I think the PS is fine for developmental wide receivers.

not sure, but i think this decision about cuts AND about who to dress on sunday is generally driven by players' injury status. IMO any player who has made the team in those slots---6th WR, 9th DB, 8th LB, 5th RB, has shown to be a good ST player. so ST value isn't really an issue. return ability sure is, tho. hobbs looks like a flashy return guy, but will he ever be less fumble-scary on returns?
i seem to have seen a number of 4-WR sets in '05, but you're right teich--watson or fauria was usually in a slot on those formations. he!!, why not? looking for mismatches, right?
as for developmental WRs, what's the story on pk sam? or my favorite TC player from last year, ricky bryant?

 

[patsfan13]

IIRC Bryant is on the roster, PK was picked up by the Bengals last year.

Last year IIRC we carried 6 WR, 3 TE & 4 RB's out of TC, given the draft picks, that could change to 5 WR, 3 TE, 4 RB & Mills as a utility guy. I agree that players especially the backups have to establish a role for themselves on ST's. I wouldn't be shocked to see Childress make the team over B Johnson this year.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Since last weekend i've been thinking 5 WRs does it this season.

Been wishing Bryant and Chapman and Eckel and Reid hadn't had to disappear.
In September i'll be wishing some bunch of Klecko, Bethel, Bam, Pass, Santonio, etc. ...
didn't have the same happen to them.

Quite the roster richness, alright. Remember this time 5 ... 6 ... years ago?

 

[JoeSixPat]

We really have no need for a 6th WR. We do have a need for a pass-catching Hback/FB.

I think the #5 WR is now for Bethel Johnson and Childress to fight over, with the winner expected to make the team based on returner abilities.

There's really no such thing at a #6 WR. You can only ever put 5 on the field at once, and even if you go 5-wide, one of them would probably be Watson anyway.

Seconding these opinions, the 6th WR is usually inactive on game day anyway, so the 6th spot is only used for rare circumstances where we have a developmental player that we want to protect from other teams, not willing to take the chance of putting them on the practice squad

That same roster spot can go to a coach's choice spot that could serve another purpose and depth elsewhere - a special teamer of some sort... a HB/FB as mgteich suggests

But at the end of the day the top 2 WRs will get the bulk of the receptions, with 3 & 4 doing their part along with the RBs & TEs.

#5 is the real backup - often intended to be the #3 WR of the future - and even he is often inactive on gameday

 

[arrellbee]

We really have no need for a 6th WR. We do have a need for a pass-catching Hback/FB.

I think the #5 WR is now for Bethel Johnson and Childress to fight over, with the winner expected to make the team based on returner abilities.

To be more blunt, we only need THREE wide receivers active, plus a fourth, if one is a returner. I think the 5th receiver is a position for a returner or for a developmental player, because if he can't he return, he isn't active.

Yes, we usually have four active, because at least one is returning punts.

I think the PS is fine for developmental wide receivers.

I think you have an interesting speculation. We have talked about in another thread that there might be a lot to be said for carrying 7 RB/TE. Dropping back the WR slots to 5 would provide that extra 7th RB/TE spot. And if the offense were to be shifted to emphasize the TE and FB passing game a little bit, that would take away a little of the need for WR.

It's always fascinating to try to anticipate and guess what Belichick might do. But on the other side of the roster slots coin. Belichick has carried 6 WR into the season pretty consistently. And experience shows that injuries are not uncommon at all in the receiving corps and you can quickly get down into the depth chart for a while.

Just for interest, here are the slots allocated in the final 53 man roster for the last couple years:

QB 3 . 3
RB 3 . 3
TE 3 . 3
WR 6 . 6

OL 9 . 8

CB 5 . 6
S . 4 . 4

LB 10 . 10
DL 7 . 7

K, P, LS

 

[mgteich]

How many receptions did the #4, #5, and #6 wide receivers make last year? My guess is "not many".
------------------------
1) I expect fewer receptions this year, and more running.
2) I expect more catches by the three TE's.
3) I expect that the TE who set an NCAA record for receiving yards by a TE should have a few catches as an H-back. Mills had 87 catches last year, and is a ST terror.

The 5-receiver set is NOT a 5-wide receiver set. The TE's and Faulk often are receivers under this circumstance.
-------------------------------------------

I expect at least one of the receivers to be a returner, and therefore active on game day.

















/

 

[arrellbee]

How many receptions did the #4, #5, and #6 wide receivers make last year? My guess is "not many".
------------------------
1) I expect fewer receptions this year, and more running.
2) I expect more catches by the three TE's.
3) I expect that the TE who set an NCAA record for receiving yards by a TE should have a few catches as an H-back. Mills had 87 catches last year, and is a ST terror.

The 5-receiver set is NOT a 5-wide receiver set. The TE's and Faulk often are receivers under this circumstance.
-------------------------------------------

I expect at least one of the receivers to be a returner, and therefore active on game day.

I, at least for one, think you have a good point about the possibility of carrying only 5 WR if Mills makes the team.

However, a question:
Don't you think there must be some pretty solid reason that Belichick has usually carried 6 WR on his 53 man rosters ??

A disclaimer:
I have learned to not be surprised at all when Belichick does something different than he has done before.

My thought:
If what appears to be a solid hybrid TE/RB like Mills doesn't make the roster, I somewhat doubt that Belichick will carry more than 3RB and 3TE on his opening 53 man roster and he will likely carry 6 WR. I am intrigued with the possibility you have raised that, if Mills or his like makes the roster, that they might drop back to 5 WR and carry 7 RB/TE.

 

[flutie2phelan]

I, at least for one, think you have a good point about the possibility of carrying only 5 WR if Mills makes the team.

Few things in this world are certain. But one of those ... is that a top-of-the-fourth-rounder
makes this roster.

Furthermore, the picks behind him, Gostkowski, O'Callaghan, and Mincey are equally ... overwhelmingly ... probable.

 

[oldrover]

The sixth WR is a game day inactive anyway. Between the TEs, the existing WRs, and the H-back-infused backfield, Brady will have plenty of targets either way.