keeping 5 RBs...

[14thDragon]

The final Roster Spots are going to be tought to come by here. Special Teams production is going to be HUGE.

It is not going to come down to wether or not you want both Faulk vs Pass, but each of these guys against a Roach, Mincey, Andrews or Hawkins.

Which is better to have a 5th ILB or 4th RB? Hard to judge, but special teams production will be a major determining factor. Not to mention the fact that a young developing player, that has sparks of talent, might just get the nod over a "Long in the Tooth" RB. Just a thought there.

Training camp is going to a war from start to finish.

 

[arrellbee]

The final Roster Spots are going to be tought to come by here. Special Teams production is going to be HUGE.

It is not going to come down to wether or not you want both Faulk vs Pass, but each of these guys against a Roach, Mincey, Andrews or Hawkins.

Which is better to have a 5th ILB or 4th RB? Hard to judge, but special teams production will be a major determining factor. Not to mention the fact that a young developing player, that has sparks of talent, might just get the nod over a "Long in the Tooth" RB. Just a thought there.

Training camp is going to a war from start to finish.

Good observations !! And you certainly have some of the names that are going to be tough tradeoffs.

 

[spacecrime]

I think the idea of Kevin Faulk is as asinine as it gets. I don't mean to be obstinate, but if anyone actually thinks Faulk is in any danger of getting cut, I just don't see how they can be a serious football fan. Not saying you're not a "real" fan or that we're not allowed to criticize or have our own opinions, etc... But it's in the same realm of crazy as the idea of the Patriots cutting Jarvis Green or Ty Warren.

Or as crazy as cutting Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law or WMG. Absolutely nuts!

Let's not confuse player ability with whether or not a guy gets cut, or not re-signed. It has to do with what group of players makes the best overall team.

(Do you really think that losing Faulk with have the same effect as losing Ty Warren? I think it pretty interesting that you accuse some fans as not being serious fans and using crazy thinking, and your proof is saying that losing Faulk is the same as losing Ty Warren.)

 

[shakadave]

New way to look at it

I just think that, in the heat of the moment, no-one wants to see Faulk or Pass cut - and there are passionate fans for both of them. But the hard reality is that for every player extra you keep at one position, you have to carry one less at another position. So how would you make the tradeoff ??

23 players on offense:
QB 3 (no less)
WR 5 (no less and maybe they need to keep another to see who develops)
OL 8 (no less and 8 might be too thin)
RB 3
TE 3
h-back 1

I don't have too much trouble thinking they might carry only 5 WR altho that leaves you vulnerable to injury. If they were to sign another WR to make the 53 man roster (as a lot of fans are hoping), at 5 WR you have to give up all of your developmental players (you might be able hide Childress on practice squad or you might well lose him)

At times, Belichick will carry 24 on offense - but when he does, he uses the extra slot to carry 9 OL. And this year, if he keeps both rookies, he already has to cut an OL veteran AND ALL of Mruczkowski, Tucker, Roehl, Britt, and Yates to get down to 8. I suspect that he may well keep 9.

So where do you get the slot to keep 4 RB plus Mills ?? ?? ?? ??

Great post by the Bee.

I think the way we keep 5 RB is to keep 4 RB plus 1 ST (Pass). Sort of the way I don't think Izzo should really be counted in our LB numbers, even though he does play there once in a blue moon. We should reserve about 4 roster spots (not sure of the number, actually) for ST who by the way happen to play a little position. (I'm not including K, P in these 4.)

Turning the usual argument on its head, instead of position cuts being made with ST as tiebreaker, think of choosing the ST lineup with position ability as the tiebreaker. This would help Pass make the team at ST since his ability to back up at RB surpasses many other ST candidates' positional abilities.

 

[14thDragon]

Great post by the Bee.

I think the way we keep 5 RB is to keep 4 RB plus 1 ST (Pass). Sort of the way I don't think Izzo should really be counted in our LB numbers, even though he does play there once in a blue moon. We should reserve about 4 roster spots (not sure of the number, actually) for ST who by the way happen to play a little position. (I'm not including K, P in these 4.)

Turning the usual argument on its head, instead of position cuts being made with ST as tiebreaker, think of choosing the ST lineup with position ability as the tiebreaker. This would help Pass make the team at ST since his ability to back up at RB surpasses many other ST candidates' positional abilities.

I'm not sure by what you are trying to say from choosing the ST line-up with positional ability as the tie breaker. Who are you saying that Pass would be equal to in ST? Who is it that his RB skills are more valuable then their positional skills?

Also, I am not sure if your logic really holds up. If you have the choice between a back-up CB and a Back-up running back, both of whom can return kicks, but the corner back is clearly the better return guy, I am not sure you can say that the back-up running backs poisiotnal skills make him the better guy to keep. Since your priority at that point is to make sure that you have the best special teams unit filled out.

 

[patsox23]

Or as crazy as cutting Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law or WMG. Absolutely nuts!

Let's not confuse player ability with whether or not a guy gets cut, or not re-signed. It has to do with what group of players makes the best overall team.

(Do you really think that losing Faulk with have the same effect as losing Ty Warren? I think it pretty interesting that you accuse some fans as not being serious fans and using crazy thinking, and your proof is saying that losing Faulk is the same as losing Ty Warren.)

Right, except I didn't say that. I said it's in the same REALM, not that it's the same thing. Try reading. And I already have a bet going with MDPATS about the Patriots cutting Faulk - care to join him in giving me $20?

As for your comparison to Lawyer Milloy, they're not analogous. Milloy was NOT productive and was overpaid. Faulk remains a productive and clutch player on the Patriots - this is based on comments made by BELICHICK.

Sorry, you people are out of your collective gord. Faulk is going nowhere.

 

[shakadave]

Who are you saying that Pass would be equal to in ST? Who is it that his RB skills are more valuable then their positional skills? .

Truly I don't follow ST closely enough to name names. I'll bet someone else can help me out here. But let's say Pass and Klecko were considered equal on ST, but Klecko wasn't really adding much to our defense. Then Pass makes the team as a "5th RB" but really as a ST player.

Also, I am not sure if your logic really holds up. If you have the choice between a back-up CB and a Back-up running back, both of whom can return kicks, but the corner back is clearly the better return guy, I am not sure you can say that the back-up running backs poisiotnal skills make him the better guy to keep. Since your priority at that point is to make sure that you have the best special teams unit filled out.

If the CB is "clearly the better return guy" then I agree with you. But if they're pretty close in return ability, and we could use depth at RB more than extra depth at CB, there's what I'm saying.

 

[MDPATSFAN]

Right, except I didn't say that. I said it's in the same REALM, not that it's the same thing. Try reading. And I already have a bet going with MDPATS about the Patriots cutting Faulk - care to join him in giving me $20?

As for your comparison to Lawyer Milloy, they're not analogous. Milloy was NOT productive and was overpaid. Faulk remains a productive and clutch player on the Patriots - this is based on comments made by BELICHICK.

Sorry, you people are out of your collective gord. Faulk is going nowhere.

Sheesh...Milloy was a Pro Bowler and team captain when he was released. Like the other guys are saying, who goes so that a running back of limited utility stays? BB didn't expend those draft picks on the running game for nothing. Somebody's going.

 

[Pats726]

So where do you get the slot to keep 4 RB plus Mills ?? ?? ?? ??

Have 1 less on defense..there is no doubt that roster spots will be at a premium..but To say there is NO WAY that they keep 5 is missing it. It's very possibly they don't keep 5..but I think they could. There were those that said that the Pats would never draft an interior lineman in the first round..they did. It depends a lot on what type of offense they ware planning on running, ST play and other variables.

 

[arrellbee]

Right, except I didn't say that. I said it's in the same REALM, not that it's the same thing. Try reading. And I already have a bet going with MDPATS about the Patriots cutting Faulk - care to join him in giving me $20?

As for your comparison to Lawyer Milloy, they're not analogous. Milloy was NOT productive and was overpaid. Faulk remains a productive and clutch player on the Patriots - this is based on comments made by BELICHICK.

Sorry, you people are out of your collective gord. Faulk is going nowhere.

I'm not in any way arguing with you in your assessment that Faulk won't be cut. I don't have a crystal ball that shows how Belichick weighs all of the factors.

But what I am pretty sure of is that every roster spot is treated like a very very valuable commodity, and, as has been said by spacecrime, what appears to matter is that what Belichick and Pioli are using the slots for is to get as many of the needed skills as possible from the 53. Direct support for that notion is that Belichick has said on many occasions that versatility is something they weigh significantly in drafting and that they practice and coach for.

So the decision on whether to keep Faulk or not does not solely depend on his total skill set or what he has done for the team - which one could easily agree are quite good. It also depends, perhaps fairly heavily, on whether his complete set of skills can be had with other players who, IN SUM, bring MORE to the team than just what Faulk can (also taking into account the signicant value of his familiarity with the team and understanding of the schemes).

So in figuring out what the odds are that Faulk gets a roster spot, you have to see if, as an example, the total skill set and potential contribution of:
Dillon, Maroney, Faulk, Mills, Watson, Graham, Thomas, and a mixture of STs
is greater than, for example,
Dillon, Maroney, Pass, Mills, Watson, Graham, Thomas, and a mixture of STs

I think everyone has a reasonable idea of what Faulk can contribute - but realize that Maroney appears to have a potential of being a good pass catching back and probably is as fast (or faster) than Faulk and is 4 inches and 14# bigger than Faulk. Mills is 5 inches and 22# bigger than Faulk and comes from a college program where he demonstrated top receiving skills.

Just for interest. Faulk and Pass had about the same number of carries and receptions last year (50+ carries and 20+ receptions each).
Carries:
Faulk 2.8 avg, 13 longest, 0 TD, 5 FD
Pass. 4.5 avg, 31 longest, 3 TD, 12 FD
Receptions:
Faulk 9.0 avg, 23 longest, 2 20+, 0 TD, 13 FD
Pass. 10.3avg, 39 longest, 4 20+, 0 TD, 8 FD
I say 'for interest' because who knows how much stats apply to anything.

Faulk and Pass both have baggage of injuries and fumbles. Pass has ST value unless he gets beat out of those duties in TC.

It seems far fetched, but is it possible that Belichick would put value on a 6th WR slot and carry only 3 RB (including Mills) and 3 TE ?? As I say, it seems a little far fetched given the experience and familiarity of Pass and Faulk with the Pats system and therefore inherent value, but stranger things have happened with the Pats.

I want to be clear that I am not in any way guessing that Faulk or whoever gets cut. There are far more factors than I would care to put money on.

My point, again, was just that it is the TOTAL SUM of skills and potential contribution of a group of players in SEVERAL positions considered TOGETHER that Belichick is looking at to figure out which players to keep in which slots and that it is really tough for us to guess how all of those factors will add up.

RB/TE will certainly be one of the most interesting positions to see who gets roster slots.

 

[mgteich]

There's plenty of room for Mills and Pass. We have carried 25 offensive
players in the past.

OFFENSE (22)
3 QB
3 RB
4 WR
9 OL
3 TE

DEFENSE (19)
6 DL (Seymour,Wilfork,Warren,Green,Hill,Sullivan)
6 LB (Colvin,Vrabel,Beisel,Bruschi,Claridge,Banta-Cain)
4 CB (Hobbs,Samuel,Gay,Warfield)
3 S (Harrison,Wilson,Hawkins)

SPECIALISTS (3)
1 K
1 P
1 DS

SPECIAL TEAMS AND DEVELOPMENTAL PROJECTS (9)
There is plenty of room for Mills and Pass and Childress (or a replacement)
That leaves say Sanders,Mincey,Izzo,Jones,Mitchell, and Guss Scott.
------------------------------------------------

I don't mean to hijack this into a roster post. I just wanted to show how easy it was to develop a roster with Mills and Pass on the squad.

 

[DaBruinz]

To do it, we need to consider where else they can help out - and where else BB can cut back:

Dillon - feature back until Maroney proves he can take the job over.

Faulk - still the best third down back; note the description of his acrobatic, one-handed catches in stories on the camp, he has been and could be the slot receiver using Pass as the third down back; PR/KR.

Pass - pretty decent utility back; good STs; he could be the slot receiver too, though I don't think his ability to seperate is what we'd like to see there; very good upfield blocker, but not as effective clearing a choked hole; KR.

Maroney - UNKNOWN, whoops, I may have said that too firmly. Potentially, he will take reps from Dillon and Faulk as the change of pace back; he could create some opportunities in a two back set with any of the other three; PR/KR/Gunner, he could be split out, I don't see him taking too many passing downs as the lone RB.

Mills - UNKNOWN, oops, did it again. My day-dream would be to see him pick up some of Givens' possession duties while learning the utility back role. STs, he could do very well there in time.

Evans - Okay power back, he may be improved with his second year in the offense; decent receiver; lousy blocker, he has lots of room to improve there; good STs.

Charles - missed all of NFLE and is still rehabbing, that makes it tough to see him winning a Practice Squad slot.

Cobbs - has an edge on the Practice Squad just from Charles' status.

Injuries are going to be determinate, here or elsewhere (trade bait). On Offense, there are two places where the club could trim to allow for RBs, OL and WR.

OL: Kaczur and Hochstein are the keys, the Pats could try to go with 8 OL instead of 9-10 to start the season. Light, Mankins, Koppen, Neal, Britt, Kaczur, Hochstein, Gorin/Tucker/Mruczkowski/Yates, put two on the Practice Squad and one or two on IR and you've done the bare minimum with your talent pool.

Mruczkowski, Britt and Yates are out of practice squad options, I believe. Also, you forgot O'Callaghan, who won't make it to the practice squad if he is waived. Not sure what others have been doing anything, though I know they signed that Doty kid.

WR: Go with five and use DBs & RBs on STs where you've used WRs. Branch, Brown, Caldwell, Jackson, Childress, two for Practice Squad, maybe a couple for IR, and there you go.

I agree with you here, though they will probably on PS players if they show something. Zuriel Smith is a wild card here. He has both KR and PR potential and I am not sure that Childress does. It will be an interesting camp battle.

The Defense seems to be looking good with the standard seven DL. LB looks like the around 10. DBs will probably work out at 10 also.

RB looks like a strength, cut first on offense, then maybe at LB if you want to keep 5 RBs.

I think its highly unlikely the Pats go with fewer than 10 LBs. Especially with Klecko back with the LB group.

 

[DaBruinz]

You really BB is going to accept another year of drinking pepto waiting for the drills to work? He had 4 fumbles in 65 rushes last year. Unacceptable for an NFL Running Back. We'll see what happens....

If you are going to use stats, please use the correct ones. Faulk had 2 rushing fumbles in 64 rushes last year. His other two fumbles came on receptions. I know that Faulk's hands aren't the greatest, but lets not overdo it.

 

[DaBruinz]

There is simply no way that the Patriots carry 5 RBs.

You HAVE to remember that you only have 53 slots and you need a certain number of players at each position.

This year there are a number of positions that are going to have some tough cuts - but more on that another time perhaps.

Over the last 3 seasons, as a sanity check, here are what the Pats carried at the start of each season:
2003 4-RB 3-TE 5-WR
2004 3-RB 3-TE 6-WR
2005 3-RB 3-TE 6-WR

Except you forgot that in 2004 the Pats had Cedric Cobbs on the 53 man roster. Not to mention Mike Cloud after his suspension was done.

You are also discounting the fact that the Patriots had to carry extra DBs because of injuries.

You can see this year, especially with the WR corps not being very deep, that they might carry 5-WR and 7-RB/TE but NO MORE than 7-RB/TE.

Gotta disagree with you here. You are making some major assumptions based on these mythical numbers you posted. Numbers that varied and changed during each season based on injuries and free agents available.

It would be highly unusual for the Patriots to cut a 4th round pick (Mills).

So you likely have
3 RBs Dillon, Maroney, and ?? Faulk/Pass
3 TEs Watson, Graham, and Thomas
1 FB/TE (h-back) swing man Mills (an interesting excursion in Belichick versatility)

I have a feeling that instead of more fixed 2 RB sets per se, what you are going to see is more TE in motion - h-back ending up as a lead blocker from motion or even coming out of the motion as a receiver.

It looks like also a real and intriguing possibility that we see more of Watson in an f-back role where he will sometimes split out as a slot receiver ? Maybe Mill also ??

I think it is reasonable to say that Belichick's offense has a heavy double TE aspect. Do we look into the hazy crystal ball and see a hint of an even more varied TE element to the offense? It will be interesting to watch.

I can very easily see the Pats carrying 4 RBs, 1 H-Back and 3 TEs. Also, I can see them carrying just 5 receivers. Heck, I believe in 2001, they went with only 4 receivers on the roster for much of the 2nd half of the season.

 

[DaBruinz]

Sheesh...Milloy was a Pro Bowler and team captain when he was released. Like the other guys are saying, who goes so that a running back of limited utility stays? BB didn't expend those draft picks on the running game for nothing. Somebody's going.

Its amazing that so many people recognize that the Pro-Bowl is a popularity contest, yet people continue to use it to justify how good a player supposedly is.

Milloy had NO forced Fumbles, No Blocked kicks, no Interceptions and no sacks in 2002. Not to mention a career low 65 tackles (up to that point and excluding his rookie year when he wasn't a fulltime starter). That is NOT production and I don't care that he was elected to the Pro-Bowl.

While Faulk's stats weren't the greatest, the O-line was makeshift most of the year and Faulk, like Dillon, played injured much of the time. You shouldn't over-look Faulk's 8.5 YPC against Jacksonville in the play-offs.

 

[MDPATSFAN]

Yes..then there was the backbreaker in Denver the following week. Every 27 touches...BOINK! As predictable as the sun rising each day.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Mruczkowski, Britt and Yates are out of practice squad options, I believe. Also, you forgot O'Callaghan, who won't make it to the practice squad if he is waived. Not sure what others have been doing anything, though I know they signed that Doty kid.

I'm heading over to Malaysia's OL thread, lets take up the battle there.

I agree with you here, though they will probably on PS players if they show something. Zuriel Smith is a wild card here. He has both KR and PR potential and I am not sure that Childress does. It will be an interesting camp battle.

Z had a knee injury knock him out mid-season, I'm considering him to be on IR until he reports to Training Camp.

I think its highly unlikely the Pats go with fewer than 10 LBs. Especially with Klecko back with the LB group.

mg and rook usually list 27 players for defense, I know we've gone with as many as 12 LBs in the past, but 10 is a pretty conservative number - unless you do count Klecko, then is way overboard on depth.

1010101010

 

[arrellbee]

Over the last 3 seasons, as a sanity check, here are what the Pats carried at the start of each season:
2003 4-RB 3-TE 5-WR
2004 3-RB 3-TE 6-WR
2005 3-RB 3-TE 6-WR

Except you forgot that in 2004 the Pats had Cedric Cobbs on the 53 man roster. Not to mention Mike Cloud after his suspension was done.

I didn't forget anything. You did. You forgot that I said the start of the season. And you forgot that the whole topic is about what the 53 man roster will be after final cuts at the start of the season.

You are also discounting the fact that the Patriots had to carry extra DBs because of injuries.

I'm not discounting anything. The last 4 years, the Pats have carried on their season starting 53 man roster 10, 9, 9, and 10 DBs. Pretty consistent.

Gotta disagree with you here. You are making some major assumptions based on these mythical numbers you posted. Numbers that varied and changed during each season based on injuries and free agents available.

No problem if you disagree. That's what forum discussions are all about. But you are wrong - the numbers are NOT mythical. They are the actual numbers from the season starting rosters. But, again, we are talking about what the 53 man roster will be starting the season. All kinds of variations occur during a season due to players going on the IR or even players who can't play for a few weeks but aren't put on the IR.

I can very easily see the Pats carrying 4 RBs, 1 H-Back and 3 TEs. Also, I can see them carrying just 5 receivers.

OK. It's 'easy' to say that they could 'easily' carry 8 RB/TE. But what's not so easy is when you have to say what positions they are going to cut back on in order to carry the extra RB/TE (actually 2 extras compared to the last 2 seasons where they started the year with 6 RB/TE).

 

[Pats726]

Mruczkowski, Britt and Yates are out of practice squad options, I believe. Also, you forgot O'Callaghan, who won't make it to the practice squad if he is waived. Not sure what others have been doing anything, though I know they signed that Doty kid.

Mruc and Yates are out of options for PSqd...more games played in..Britt is still eligible..one can have 2 years on PSqd..and not be on the 53...
and Britt has NOT been on the 53 or have had 2 years..so he is still eligible.

 

[Pats726]

OK. It's 'easy' to say that they could 'easily' carry 8 RB/TE. But what's not so easy is when you have to say what positions they are going to cut back on in order to carry the extra RB/TE (actually 2 extras compared to the last 2 seasons where they started the year with 6 RB/TE).

I think Mgtch has given ample reasoning as to how it COULD happen..Carry 3 carry 4..carry 5 all options are available...and possible. it is you who are saying NOT possible..WON'T happen..and that is a paradigm that you have artificially set up...I doubt it is one that is real. 3 TEs??? yes..that is closer to it..they always have started with 3..and if they keep Mills as TE/FB..he could be considered a 4th..or a 5th RB. but NO WAY carrying 5?? Not a paradigm.