Kirwan on BJGE

[TheComeback]

Your dislike of an argument does not invalidate that argument. Also, Faulk is a halfback.

Now, when was the last time the Patriots kept 5 halfbacks?

You are breathtakingly irrational in every post I've read the last few days. We kept five running backs last year. One of them was a fullback. The fullback is now gone. Logic would dictate that this situation would allow us to keep five "real" halfbacks with little to no differentiation from what we did last year. And even so, what does it matter that we've never done it before? This isn't the same league it was even four years ago. We frankly shouldn't be doing things the same way every season.

BB is always about keeping the best players on the team. And while I don't consider BenJarvus to be a guaranteed lock to make the team, it is awfully difficult to find someone who is more valuable.

Also, I do not believe the bullcrap about us cutting/trading Maroney or Morris. We have had too many injuries at the position for BB NOT to keep five halfbacks. All of these guys have a history of injury problems. Not a one of them is eligible for the practice squad. If BB cuts one, he better have a good backup plan in case of injuries. But I don't see that happening.

Morris is an excellent pass-blocking RB, second only to Faulk, and he's a great short-yardage and overall power back. Maroney is still young, showed us flashes when he finally got into game shape by the '07 postseason, and is therefore worth giving another chance given his cheap contract. Faulk is, of course, going no where. Neither is Fred. And BenJarvus looks like he is being groomed for Morris' role.

I would be surprised if we DIDN'T keep five halfbacks. BB is not going to look at the roster and say "Oh, five halfbacks. Never done that before. Can't do that. Unheard of." He is going to do what's best for the team, and I feel that that is keeping five halfbacks.

EDIT: I'll add that last year, we all had the same argument about whether Belichick would keep 5 RBs. The head-in-sand crowd crowed then about how you just don't keep five running backs, what's the point, blah blah, Maroney was supposed to be cut, etc. Belichick kept 5 anyway. Now we are having a lesser argument, since we don't even have to include a fullback into the count. I am 90% sure BB carries 5 RB on the 53.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are breathtakingly irrational in every post I've read the last few days. We kept five running backs last year. One of them was a fullback. The fullback is now gone. Logic would dictate that this situation would allow us to keep five "real" halfbacks with little to no differentiation from what we did last year. And even so, what does it matter that we've never done it before? This isn't the same league it was even four years ago. We frankly shouldn't be doing things the same way every season.

BB is always about keeping the best players on the team. And while I don't consider BenJarvus to be a guaranteed lock to make the team, it is awfully difficult to find someone who is more valuable.

Also, I do not believe the bullcrap about us cutting/trading Maroney or Morris. We have had too many injuries at the position for BB NOT to keep five halfbacks. All of these guys have a history of injury problems. Not a one of them is eligible for the practice squad. If BB cuts one, he better have a good backup plan in case of injuries. But I don't see that happening.

Morris is an excellent pass-blocking RB, second only to Faulk, and he's a great short-yardage and overall power back. Maroney is still young, showed us flashes when he finally got into game shape by the '07 postseason, and is therefore worth giving another chance given his cheap contract. Faulk is, of course, going no where. Neither is Fred. And BenJarvus looks like he is being groomed for Morris' role.

I would be surprised if we DIDN'T keep five halfbacks. BB is not going to look at the roster and say "Oh, five halfbacks. Never done that before. Can't do that. Unheard of." He is going to do what's best for the team, and I feel that that is keeping five halfbacks.

Fullback<> Halfback and I was responding to a specific post:

Originally Posted by patsox23 View Post
I like Kirwan, but the team keeps 5 RBs often, and did last year. True, one has been Heath Evans pulling a lot of FB duty, but with Dave Thomas doing that, I think there's flexibility to go with 5 RBs and 5 or 6 WRs, as well

There was nothing irrational about my question. Thanks, though, for your input.

As for whether they keep BJGE or not, that's up to them. I can't recall a time where the team went into the season with 5 halfbacks on the roster, and the team has had Thomas working some fullback. That doesn't mean that 5 halfbacks won't happen this season. It does, however, offer a window into the general thought process of the team.

My position is that I don't expect BJGE to make the team at the expense of Maroney, Taylor, Faulk or a healthy Morris. I've said that I would only expect BJGE to be kept if the team kept 5 running backs or if the team IR'd Morris or gave him an injury settlement so that they could bring him back later. This is a year with greater competition for spots than perhaps any season in the Belichick era, and carrying 5 running backs would mean that someone very deserving at another spot would be cut loose. To me, the most likely scenario was that BJGE would end up on some other team's 53, and I stated that on one thread or another. BB's recent comments have caused me to wonder if that scenario is more likely than I had thought, but it doesn't change my opinon on BJGEs ranking in the Patriots RB stable.

Again, thanks for your input. Have a nice day.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: greatest gig in the world. What other profession pays you to be wrong most of the time?

financial advisors.

Remember: Past performance does not indicate future results.

 

[fair catch fryar]

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: greatest gig in the world. What other profession pays you to be wrong most of the time?

The weather?

 

[Rob0729]

When was the last time this team kept 5 halfbacks?

Yeah, people forget the 5th RB was Heath Evans as a FB. With Thomas taking over the H-Back roll, he will most likely play the FB position.

 

[Rob0729]

As was said, last year.

Really?!? When did Heath Evans play halfback? Even when Maroney, Morris, and Jordan were hurt last year, they activated and started BJGE than move Evans to halfback. I think every single one of Evans' rushes were FB draws.

 

[Rob0729]

You are breathtakingly irrational in every post I've read the last few days. We kept five running backs last year. One of them was a fullback. The fullback is now gone. Logic would dictate that this situation would allow us to keep five "real" halfbacks with little to no differentiation from what we did last year. And even so, what does it matter that we've never done it before? This isn't the same league it was even four years ago. We frankly shouldn't be doing things the same way every season.

BB is always about keeping the best players on the team. And while I don't consider BenJarvus to be a guaranteed lock to make the team, it is awfully difficult to find someone who is more valuable.

Also, I do not believe the bullcrap about us cutting/trading Maroney or Morris. We have had too many injuries at the position for BB NOT to keep five halfbacks. All of these guys have a history of injury problems. Not a one of them is eligible for the practice squad. If BB cuts one, he better have a good backup plan in case of injuries. But I don't see that happening.

Morris is an excellent pass-blocking RB, second only to Faulk, and he's a great short-yardage and overall power back. Maroney is still young, showed us flashes when he finally got into game shape by the '07 postseason, and is therefore worth giving another chance given his cheap contract. Faulk is, of course, going no where. Neither is Fred. And BenJarvus looks like he is being groomed for Morris' role.

I would be surprised if we DIDN'T keep five halfbacks. BB is not going to look at the roster and say "Oh, five halfbacks. Never done that before. Can't do that. Unheard of." He is going to do what's best for the team, and I feel that that is keeping five halfbacks.

EDIT: I'll add that last year, we all had the same argument about whether Belichick would keep 5 RBs. The head-in-sand crowd crowed then about how you just don't keep five running backs, what's the point, blah blah, Maroney was supposed to be cut, etc. Belichick kept 5 anyway. Now we are having a lesser argument, since we don't even have to include a fullback into the count. I am 90% sure BB carries 5 RB on the 53.

Logic would actually dictated that the reason they were forced to keep 5 RBs last year was because they needed to keep Evans as a FB. Logic would dictate that since Thomas is taking the H-back role on in preseason, he will assume the FB duties. Logic would dictate Belichick didn't keep 5 RBs because he liked having 5 roster spots taken up by the RB position and the only reason he had 5 RBs last year was because he needed to have a 5th RB who played the FB position near exclusively. Logic would also dictate now that he is filling the FB position duties with another position that he may not need to carry 5 RBs and can use that roster position elsewhere.

Just because the Pats carried 5 RBs last year doesn't mean they will do it again. They carried 4 QB in 2000. They will probably never do that again. Every year has different situations. Last year the FB role was handled by Evans which he did almost exclusively. Based on the preseason, Dave Thomas will take that role.

Now Belichick may determine that either Morris or BJGE could take that role and justify the fifth RB on the roster, but I can't see Belichick carrying 5 RB without one of them doing FB duty.

 

[vyrago]

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating: greatest gig in the world. What other profession pays you to be wrong most of the time?

tv weatherman.

 

[bucky]

Your dislike of an argument does not invalidate that argument. Also, Faulk is a halfback.

Now, when was the last time the Patriots kept 5 halfbacks?

This has nothing to do with my dislike of an argument. As a matter of fact, I think it's a valid argument. I'm just pointing out that this particular line of thinking has proven wrong many times before. It's like saying you're not going to play a particular lottery number because it has never come up before.

As for Faulk, yes he's capable of playing halfback. Just like Evans was capable of playing halfback. But at this stage in his career, he's just a 3rd down back just like Evans was just a FB.

 

[Deus Irae]

This has nothing to do with my dislike of an argument. As a matter of fact, I think it's a valid argument. I'm just pointing out that this particular line of thinking has proven wrong many times before. It's like saying you're not going to play a particular lottery number because it has never come up before.

As for Faulk, yes he's capable of playing halfback. Just like Evans was capable of playing halfback. But at this stage in his career, he's just a 3rd down back just like Evans was just a FB.

A 3rd down back is a halfback (I can't think of any fullbacks who play the role off the top of my head now) who comes in mostly on passing downs. The player is still a halfback.

As for the line of thinking, I've noted that the team could carry 5 halfbacks. I've simply also pointed out that it's not something usually done, and I've done it by asking when it's happened before. People are clamoring for BJGE, and that's fine. They just need to brace themselves for disappointment if BB follows his normal numbers for halfbacks, in my opinion.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Clearly if BB keeps people based on production in preseason games then Green-Ellis and Nunn are keepers and Morris (or Taylor) and Galloway are history.

The only way BB can afford tokeep five HBs is if two of them can play on ST coverage units. Green-Ellis can for sure and maybe Morris can too. So theorectically it is possible for BB to keep 5 HBs.

 

[mgteich]

This is not clear at all. We can afford to have five running backs with one or two inactive each week. If the #5 is not a top special team like Evans, than he can be inactive or active only when there are a large number of injuries.

That being said, my preference is to choose between Green-Ellis and Morris. Either Ben-Jarvis has come along enough to be our #4 RB or he hasn't. If he isn't good enough to be the #4 running back, then he must beat out Alexander or Ventrone based on his special teams ability. That really isn't very likely. The other alternative would be if Green-Ellis could be the backup to Faulk as a 3rd down back. He has few of the skills for that role.

We use three running backs in various roles. The fullback role will not be handled by a running back. Why should we keep a player not good enough to be #4 on the depth chart.

Clearly if BB keeps people based on production in preseason games then Green-Ellis and Nunn are keepers and Morris (or Taylor) and Galloway are history.

The only way BB can afford tokeep five HBs is if two of them can play on ST coverage units. Green-Ellis can for sure and maybe Morris can too. So theorectically it is possible for BB to keep 5 HBs.

 

[PatsFan37]

tv weatherman.

At least weathermen are right in retrospect.

 

[Jared]

A 3rd down back is a halfback (I can't think of any fullbacks who play the role off the top of my head now) who comes in mostly on passing downs. The player is still a halfback.

Historically, both Larry Centers and Ritchie Anderson filled these roles with the Bills and Jets.

 

[Deus Irae]

Historically, both Larry Centers and Ritchie Anderson filled these roles with the Bills and Jets.

Thanks. I meant current, but even past serves as a great example, and Centers was a Patriot, so I should have remembered him. Also, looking back at what I was posted, I sort of approached it half-assed. I should simply have noted that whether a player is out on first down or third down, he's still a halfback/fullback/H-back, etc...

 

[patchick]

I think the core of the BJGE dilemma is that the Pats' 5th-best halfback is a better football player than the alternatives for the 53rd spot. So the natural instinct is to keep him. After all, why would you keep a worse player? But the answer is that a worse player can sometimes result in a better team. Take it out to the extreme -- you wouldn't have much of a team carrying 53 halfbacks, even if all of them were Adrian Peterson.

Personally I like all 5 backs, but I think 5 is too many. You would be looking at 2 inactives every week, and RB is one of the easiest positions to fill in during the season. IMO it's better incremental value to the team to keep a player at another position.

 

[Ring 6]

Clearly if BB keeps people based on production in preseason games then Green-Ellis and Nunn are keepers and Morris (or Taylor) and Galloway are history.

The only way BB can afford tokeep five HBs is if two of them can play on ST coverage units. Green-Ellis can for sure and maybe Morris can too. So theorectically it is possible for BB to keep 5 HBs.

Are youasking whether BB keeps players based on performance in preseason games, or saying that he does? Because the answer is no, he doesnt.

 

[unoriginal]

Are youasking whether BB keeps players based on performance in preseason games, or saying that he does? Because the answer is no, he doesnt.

Recalibrate your sarcasm detector.

 

[Seymour93]

None of these guys have talked to Belichick, and none of them have any idea what'll happen- their opinions are worth, at best, a little more than those of a lot of posters on this board (and in reality, I trust the insight of a lot of people on this board more than just about anyone in the media not named Don Banks). They're just guessing, and they're usually pretty bad at it since they're splitting their attention among 32 teams.

Kirwan and BB are friends. They worked together at the Jets for a season and apparently BB let Kirwan sit in the war room during a draft a few years ago. BB has also appeared on Kirwan and Tim Ryan's Sirius show a few times. So BB is a lot closer to Kirwan than your average talking head.

 

[IndyKen]

Kirwan and BB are friends. They worked together at the Jets for a season and apparently BB let Kirwan sit in the war room during a draft a few years ago. BB has also appeared on Kirwan and Tim Ryan's Sirius show a few times. So BB is a lot closer to Kirwan than your average talking head.

And it shows on his Sirius NFL show. He alone may be worth the price of a Sirius subscription.