NEW REISS MAILBAG: Holes to be filled

[MoLewisrocks]

Questions remain for Pats on Law, the LBs, and backup QB
By Mike Reiss, Globe Staff | May 26, 2006

FOXBOROUGH -- Judging by the e-mails sent by fans over the last few weeks, these are the top three issues on the mind of Patriots followers:

Is Ty Law coming back to town?

Should the team's fans be concerned with the linebacking corps?

Who might be brought in as a backup quarterback?

Let's get right to the questions.

What are your thoughts on Ty Law returning to the Pats? Do you think there is any way Ty would take less, and should he return how do you see him best utilized here?
Donna, Boston

I believe if all things are equal financially, Law would return to the Patriots. My reasoning is that it gives him a great chance to win another Super Bowl ring and -- assuming he plays a key role in the team's success -- earn Hall of Fame consideration. Based on the teams involved (Chiefs, Titans, Buccaneers and Patriots) at this time, I don't see a market-busting offer in the offing, which also makes me think Law could be back. Law has spoken personally with Bill Belichick, although Law's agent, Carl Poston, has yet to become involved. The Patriots and Poston have had some differences in the past. I think the Chiefs are the prime competition right now for Law, and believe they have already started talking contract numbers. As for where Law would be best utilized in New England, I think he'd immediately become the team's No. 1 cornerback in 2006.


Mike also opines that the pats may not feel the need for the classic older vet QB in year 7 of the Brady era. Thinks Vrabel will return to the outside and one of Beisel - who has added 8 pounds - Claridge - his feel good favorite - or the others on the roster need to step up as the 4th LB playing inside. Says his sense is Bethel will not emerge despite his talent because he still doesn't get it. Says BB went with Maroney as he was the remaining first rounder on his draft day card. Expects Dillon to still carry most of the load at least early on, followed by Maroney and Faulk - no mention of Pass. Says while the Pats will likely do due diligence on Brooks BB has yet to utilize the supplemental draft and likely wouldn't spend a day one pick there. Talks a bit about why we don't draft LB high.

The usual throughtful good read.


http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extras/askreiss/05_26_06/

 

[BelichickFan]

Regarding backup QB, one place I'd like to save a roster spot is having just Brady and Cassel and one of the young guys on the PS. There's some risk but given Brady's toughness, what should be a better running game and realism about what we would be without Brady (good, not great), I'd prefer to have extra depth at another spot.

 

[BelichickFan]

Says BB went with Maroney as he was the remaining first rounder on his draft day card.

I don't agree with your conclusion here. This is what Mike said :

"My understanding is that Bill Belichick holds a card in his hand during the draft that includes the names of a few players the team would select in the first round. Maroney was apparently the name left at the top of the card."

In no way do I read that as saying that Maroney was the only (that's how I read your post) remaining player graded as a #1 pick.

 

[patchick]

Regarding backup QB, one place I'd like to save a roster spot is having just Brady and Cassel and one of the young guys on the PS. There's some risk but given Brady's toughness, what should be a better running game and realism about what we would be without Brady (good, not great), I'd prefer to have extra depth at another spot.

Saves a roster spot, but not a game spot, since the emergency QB gets a free pass. Having no emergency QB would give me the willies, anyway...has any modern team ever entered the season with only 2 QBs on the roster?

 

[mgcolby]

Saves a roster spot, but not a game spot, since the emergency QB gets a free pass. Having no emergency QB would give me the willies, anyway...has any modern team ever entered the season with only 2 QBs on the roster?

Depends on how you look at it. When we had Tom Tupa he was our emergency QB, The Steelers did it with Randel-El and I believe the Jets used Tupa in the same way the Pats did. I'm sure there are more, those are just the ones I could think of.

 

[BelichickFan]

Saves a roster spot, but not a game spot, since the emergency QB gets a free pass.

It's the 53 that I want to save from. The thought of cutting a Wesley Britt or Freddie Roach to keep a #3 QB makes me want to puke. Especially as we can put one on the PS and there's also sometimes a useable veteran sitting at home watching on TV.

 

[BelichickFan]

It's the 53 that I want to save from. The thought of cutting a Wesley Britt or Freddie Roach to keep a #3 QB makes me want to puke.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying I expect us to do this or even that Belichick would consider it. It's just one of my little pet things that I'd like to see.

 

[DaBruinz]

Saves a roster spot, but not a game spot, since the emergency QB gets a free pass. Having no emergency QB would give me the willies, anyway...has any modern team ever entered the season with only 2 QBs on the roster?

Actually, yes. I believe that Denver, Indy and Tennessee all have gone with only 2 QBs of late.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Expects Dillon to still carry most of the load at least early on, followed by Maroney and Faulk - no mention of Pass.

Reis is a fool; posters here know that Pass is a LOCK! {/sarcasm}

 

[PatsFan37]

When asked if the linebacker corps was a concern, Mike says, "The one point I would make is that probably every other team in the league has similar "concerns" at some place on their roster."

In our urgency to want every hole filled, it's easy to forget that all teams are flawed and that it's not necessary for the team to be perfect to win a superbowl.

On Bethel, he made the key comment that, "The vibe I got from him was that he hasn't fully accepted the accountability for his disappointing, declining production in the first three years of his career." Wow.

 

[patchick]

Depends on how you look at it. When we had Tom Tupa he was our emergency QB, The Steelers did it with Randel-El and I believe the Jets used Tupa in the same way the Pats did. I'm sure there are more, those are just the ones I could think of.

Fair point, there have been a number of "slash" QBs in the emergency role...I don't think Kevin Faulk is at that level, though.

I guess my general point is that the rule creating the extra game-day slot for a 3rd QB was created for a reason: without a QB, your game is over. If developing a, say, Freddie Roach is really so valuable, I'd rather go the route of offering him a live-roster-level practice squad contract, rather than cutting a QB slot in order to sit Roach inactive on the 53.

 

[patchick]

Actually, yes. I believe that Denver, Indy and Tennessee all have gone with only 2 QBs of late.

Consider me newly educated!

 

[BelichickFan]

I guess my general point is that the rule creating the extra game-day slot for a 3rd QB was created for a reason: without a QB, your game is over.

We hardly ever get to out #2 QB, let alone the #3. I'd save the spot and if Brady goes out for a few weeks, activate the PS guy and make a move then.

 

[spacecrime]

It's the 53 that I want to save from. The thought of cutting a Wesley Britt or Freddie Roach to keep a #3 QB makes me want to puke. Especially as we can put one on the PS and there's also sometimes a useable veteran sitting at home watching on TV.

Not quite right... There are ALWAYS MANY useable veteran QBs at home watching

 

[MoLewisrocks]

We hardly ever get to out #2 QB, let alone the #3. I'd save the spot and if Brady goes out for a few weeks, activate the PS guy and make a move then.

There's an old adage that just because you get away with something doesn't make it right. We've not needed a #2 QB let alone #3 since 2001. But the law of averages being what it is we may need one sooner or later. The problem with not carrying three is when you need him your options become very limited. Even with 3 the JETS and the Steelers were in a real bind last season. The Jets lost #1 and #1 within 7 plays of each other, and that left them with an overwhelmed rookie and Vinnie the Couchpotatoe leaping in totally out of psynch to boot. The Steelers were lucky in their running game and the defense could barely carry them and Ben was back in a few weeks.

That being said I'd rather roll the dice somewhwere else on #53 than QB. The odds are that guy never sees the field either way since he is likely a third stringer at whatever position. And we have a lot of guys on this roster who can multi task at just about any position save QB.

Indy kind of had to make the decision to go with 2 QB's because they had to carry 2 kickers. Hopefully that won't ever happen here.