Let's talk about current depth

[RelocatedPatFan]

On offense, I'm assuming Other than the Solder King, who's seemingly either related to, or dating, Smith, and is bagging on Crumpler as a result, is there anyone who's got an issue with TE depth?

I don't have an issue with depth of TE's. My only point for the Tight End position is that we really don't have a backup for Gronk (Hernandex either but his backup is more likely to come from the WR corps).

Then again, a team can't possibly have a quality backup for that type of tight-end (triple threat -- Block, Catch, Red-zone) Crumpler used to be, but he's more a blocker now and a return to form of years ago seems unlikely.

if Gronk goes out, it would be reflected as a shift in the offense, primarily red-zone.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Safety: Is there anyone besides our "cousin" who isn't at least fairly comfortable with the team's depth at safety, if you consider Chung and Meriweather as the starters, and comfortable with Sanders if he has to fill in as a starter for a stretch?

I'm happy with safety depth. It would be tough to find a better #3 safety than Sanders, and the options at #4 and #5 (Brandon McGowan, Jarrad Page, Sergio Brown) are probably as good as any in the league for that far down the depth chart. Beyond that there is Josh Barrett, Brett Lockett and Ross Ventrone, and though they may not inspire much confidence right now, at least they are familiar with the system; there are so many others ahead of them at this position that should not be a concern.

 

[mgteich]

I suggest that we have 12 "starters" on offense, depending on situation.

OL Solder, Mankins, Koppen, Connolly, Vollmer
WR Welker, Branch
QB Brady
RB Green-Ellis, Woodhead
TE Gronkowski, Hernandez
==============================================
EVALUATING THE DEPTH (possibly 13 roster spots)

OL Kaczur, LeVoir/Maneri, Wendell, Ohrnberger/Cannon
WR Tate, Edelman, Price
QB Hoyer, Mallett
RB Vareen, Ridley
TE Crumpler
#13 Smith/Faulk/fa

We have roles for these guys other than injury protection. We sometimes use a 3rd WR or a 3rd TE. We use kick and punt returners. This is an OK group of bench players for a Belichick team. Compared to other teams, it is excellent.
====================================
But. how would we do when our starters are injured? Here is the real vulnerability. Obviously, our starters are better than our backups, or the would be starting. However, I am not sure that I am very confortable with very manyh of the backups starting for a significant amount of games. I guess Wendell and Kaczur are the best of the lot, but that isn't saying much.

But to Belichick's credit, there are no disaster situations.

We have trained backups at all positions, ready to come in. Obviously, I don't think backup running backs take much training. I think at least one of the two should be ready for some action by the end of camp. If not, we will be adding a veteran running back (Faulk?) and have Smith on the Practice Squad. This may the best idea in any case, given how fragile running backs are.

There are opportunities for upgrades of backup players at everywhere except TE and QB.
========================================

On offense, I'm assuming

5 OL
2 WR
QB
RB
TE

leaving the 11th spot open for TE/RB/WR as situational (and/or figuring posters will decide who they put in as the 11 starter), and considering 3rd down RB as a position as well as a part of the basic RB stable.

Other than the Solder King, who's seemingly either related to, or dating, Smith, and is bagging on Crumpler as a result, is there anyone who's got an issue with TE depth?

 

[Deus Irae]

With Morris and Taylor likely gone, and with Faulk's status up in the air, I think it's safe to say that running back (both 'featured' and 3rd down) is an area with serious questions when it comes to depth. The team currently has no proven players to back up either position (I'm keeping BJGE and Woodhead separate for the purpose of those roles). There's so much in question here that I don't think the position can even be fairly evaluated right now.


Anyone have any major disagreement with this take?

 

[supafly]

I'm happy with safety depth. It would be tough to find a better #3 safety than Sanders, and the options at #4 and #5 (Brandon McGowan, Jarrad Page, Sergio Brown) are probably as good as any in the league for that far down the depth chart. Beyond that there is Josh Barrett, Brett Lockett and Ross Ventrone, and though they may not inspire much confidence right now, at least they are familiar with the system; there are so many others ahead of them at this position that should not be a concern.

I agree with your thoughts about Page and McGowan, now all we have to do is actually re-sign one of them.

All I really want is one or the other, but if I had my choice, I think I'd prefer Page.

It'd be a shame if they both went elsewhere this yr.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Haven't seen this brought up much, but WR worries me. If Welker or Branch goes down (and it's not exactly unheard of for either/both of them to miss a few games) I'm not sure how effective the guys behind them will being. Seeing some progress from Taylor Price would go a long way toward helping in that dept.

 

[Shelterdog]

With Morris and Taylor likely gone, and with Faulk's status up in the air, I think it's safe to say that running back (both 'featured' and 3rd down) is an area with serious questions when it comes to depth. The team currently has no proven players to back up either position (I'm keeping BJGE and Woodhead separate for the purpose of those roles). There's so much in question here that I don't think the position can even be fairly evaluated right now.


Anyone have any major disagreement with this take?

Are you aware that the Pats drafted Vereen and Ridley?

Every team has question marks at backup. Recent high picks might not be proven but they're an excellent answer to the "serious question" of depth. They certainly might not perform but right now I'm not sure I'd trade Vereen and Ridley for the three/four running back combo of any other team in the league.

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you aware that the Pats drafted Vereen and Ridley?

Recent high picks might not be proven but they're an excellent answer to the "serious question" of depth.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm also aware that they've shown no more than you and I have, which is why I had

currently has no proven players

in the post.

Picks aren't an answer to anything but picks. They've shown nothing. I could see someone arguing about a first rounder, given the Patriots history there, but it's obvious that every other round is a crap shoot to some extent.

You might also wish to note that I put forth the notion that the position can't be fairly evaluated, rather than giving either a positive or a negative score on depth here.

 

[Shelterdog]

Yes, I'm aware. I'm also aware that they've shown no more than you and I have.

So you rushed for a thousand yards in a major conference last year?

 

[mgteich]

I would nopt be surprised to see both Page and McGowan go, especially with the addition of Dowling.

QUOTE=supafly;2587515]I agree with your thoughts about Page and McGowan, now all we have to do is actually re-sign one of them.

All I really want is one or the other, but if I had my choice, I think I'd prefer Page.

It'd be a shame if they both went elsewhere this yr.[/QUOTE]

 

[Deus Irae]

So you rushed for a thousand yards in a major conference last year?

I have exactly as many carries and rushes in the NFL as the two Patriots drafted RBs combined. You should either feel free to join in the discussion or take a walk. I don't care which, but I'll not waste any more time sparring with you over the obvious while you follow me from thread to thread with a wild hair across your ass.

 

[Shelterdog]

I have exactly as many carries and rushes in the NFL as the two Patriots drafted RBs combined. You should either feel free to join in the discussion or take a walk. I don't care which, but I'll not waste any more time sparring with you over the obvious while you follow me from thread to thread with a wild hair across your ass.

But it's simply not obvious that the Pats have "serious questions" at running back. They don't have proven NFL players but they do have players who are LIKELY to be reasonably good based on their college production.

 

[signbabybrady]

With Morris and Taylor likely gone, and with Faulk's status up in the air, I think it's safe to say that running back (both 'featured' and 3rd down) is an area with serious questions when it comes to depth. The team currently has no proven players to back up either position (I'm keeping BJGE and Woodhead separate for the purpose of those roles). There's so much in question here that I don't think the position can even be fairly evaluated right now.


Anyone have any major disagreement with this take?

I actually disagree with that I think a Rookie 2nd rd pick and rookie 3rd pick should be considered good depth. Then we are also parsing RB into 2 position RB and passing back which I agree with as Woodhead and BJGE roles are very different but I think they each can back up some what the other does.

Therooks might not be ready right away but unless BJGE gets hurt very early this is a non-issue and for purposes of depth discussion I think we should leave injuries out of it. We can safely assume any positions depth can be tested by injuries some may be more equiped than others but that isnt neccessarily talent as much as roles.

 

[Deus Irae]

But it's simply not obvious that the Pats have "serious questions" at running back.

Again, that's obviously untrue. They currently have nobody who's ever taken a snap at the position set to be backups, and they didn't just draft Adrian Peterson in the last draft. To anyone sane, that means there are serious questions at the position.

They don't have proven NFL players but they do have players who are LIKELY to be reasonably good based on their college production.

They aren't playing in college this season, and pretty much every guy who busts in the pros had some likelihood of being good based upon his college production.

 

[Deus Irae]

I actually disagree with that I think a Rookie 2nd rd pick and rookie 3rd pick should be considered good depth.

You now want totally unproven players to be considered good depth? At that point, it's just making crap up. You might as well pretend that every player drafted is awesome depth.

Here's last year's RB class, just in the first 2 rounds:

2010
1 1 9 9 C.J. Spiller
2 1 12 12 Ryan Mathews
3 1 30 30 Jahvid Best
4 2 4 36 Dexter McCluster
5 2 19 51 Toby Gerhart
6 2 26 58 Ben Tate
7 2 27 59 Montario Hardesty

Even there, it's clear that you can't assume production from the position, and that's not even getting to the 3rd round.

 

[mgteich]

The defense in much more up in the air because of question regarding the starting positions.

DEFENSIVE STARTERS (11)
DL Warren, Wilfork, Wright
LB Cunningham, Mayo, Spikes, Banta-Cain
DB McCourty, Bodden, Meriweather, Chung

DEPTH (12)
NT Love
DL Deaderick/Stroud, Pryor, Brace
LB Fletcher, Guyton, Ninkovich, Moore/Murrell/Carter
DB Dowling, Sanders, Arrington, Butler/Wilhite

SPECIAL TEAMS (2)
Slater, Arrington, Ninkovich, Fletcher were our top depth special teams players in 2010. Two should win these spots, unless White is brought back for one of the positions. For analysis, it may be wasiest to consider Slater and White winning these positions.
==============================
EVALUATING THE DEPTH
I think that we are weak at NT and OLB.
We are fine at ILB and DB.

Obviously, we could also re-sign Page.

We spend a lot of time discussing individual players, especially starters. I thought it would be interesting to change it up a bit. Let's talk just projected backups and empty positions, understanding that free agency and UDFAs will likely change the equation.

1a) What positions are the weakest?
1b.) Are any positions so weak that they could endanger the team's potential Super Bowl run?

2a.) What positions are the strongest?
2b.) Are any positions so strong that they could be looked at as even, or an upgrade, coming in for the starter(s)?

 

[Deus Irae]

The defense in much more up in the air because of question regarding the starting positions.

I agree, but I thought it would be nice to have a thread strictly about the team's depth. I actually think the team's defense has fewer questions with depth than with the starters, except at cornerback.

 

[Shelterdog]

You now want totally unproven players to be considered good depth? At that point, it's just making crap up. You might as well pretend that every player drafted is awesome depth.

Serious question. Would you trade Vereen/Ridley for the three and four running backs of any other team in the league? Whose three/four backs would you trade them for?

 

[Deus Irae]

Serious question. Would you trade Vereen/Ridley for the three and four running backs of any other team in the league? Whose three/four backs would you trade them for?

Serious answer. I'd have to see them against NFL competition at this point. They could both be HOF players. They could both bust completely. They could fall in between. We don't know, which is why they can't be honestly evaluated at this point.

If they were the sure things you're trying to imply they are, they'd have both been chosen in the first round, and certainly ahead of Ingram. Even then, we could be looking at busts. It's not as if the first round hasn't seen its share at the RB position.

 

[Shelterdog]

Serious answer. I'd have to see them against NFL competition at this point. They could both be HOF players. They could both bust completely. They could fall in between. We don't know, which is why they can't be honestly evaluated at this point.

If they were the sure things you're trying to imply they are, they'd have both been chosen in the first round, and certainly ahead of Ingram. Even then, we could be looking at busts. It's not as if the first round hasn't seen its share at the RB position.

Hey if you think projecting depth but ignoring unproven players is a good way to spend your time, bully for you. Every single NFL team relies on lots of unproven players and every NFL coach and gm builds a team based on projections but whatever.