Pats Sign LB James Anderson and .......well There Goes My Mark Harrison @ TE Theory......

[mayoclinic]

No love for Beauharnais? Are you interested in a current UFA (e.g.: Terrell Manning, Stevenson Sylvester), or do you have an eye on somebody on another roster who might be eventually cut?

I'm ok if Beauharnais wins the 5th LB spot, but I don't particularly have any confidence in him at this point. I would like to pick up someone more reliable (Fletcher would have been ideal, but that ship has sailed). I don't see any of the UFAs jumping out at us (though I badly wanted Christian Jones, who signed with the Bears). I'm hoping that someone will get cut loose and picked up on the cheap, but right now I don't really have anyone in mind. I'm happy with the first 4 guys, and willing to see how things play out at this point. I personally can't see the room for a 6th LB who is a STer only - this roster is way too deep for that, IMO.

 

[Mike the Brit]

At times I swear that BB does this deliberately just to **** with us.
I can see the over-worked bastid exhausted, getting respite and entertainment sitting in his office watching the game film of these clowns, chortling like crazy & laughing at how us, the rabid fans, are tearing our receding hairlines out.

And then there was the hunt for someone to follow in the footsteps of Ken "Sir Shankalot" Walter (only the Pats could have used two Practice Squad places on punters at the same time -- neither of whom came to anything).

 

[mgteich]

And every year there are injuries on the defense and we watch James Ihedigbo/Sergio Brown/Tracy White/Malcolm Williams and so on lining up to try to stop an NFL offense. Drives me nuts, but BB is the greatest coach in football ...

I agree that Belichick has had problems acquiring safeties and keeping them healthy. Ihedigbo was, and probably still is, a valuable commodity as a special teamer and #4 safety. Sergio was an OK special teamer that Belichick hoped would be better. However, the problem was not that these guys were terrible starters. They were never intended to be close to getting lots of reps on defense. Belichick didn't have enough quality at the top 3 safety positions AND there were two injuries that forced guys like this to start.

SPECIAL TEAMS

In addition, one of the reasons that Belichick is one of the greatest coaches ever is his attitude toward special teams. Special teams are important to Belichick.

First the specialists are important. Kickers are paid serious money. There is often competition for punter and long snapper. Belichick uses starters at returner (Welker, Brown, Edelman, Hobbs, and others).

Starters are often key players on the special teams units. Some teams are not willing to risk top players in these roles. In addition, Belichick keeps 2-7 players who are on the squad because they are special team "starters", key player son the special teams. Yes, these players are usually emergency players at their positions, but the hope is they never get on the field as position players. The patriots have had this philosophy for many years. We have always had at least a couple of players who are on the team as "special teams only" players. These players are NOT on the bubble. Guys like Slater have special team roster positions, and are often much more important and likely to make the team that the bottom 7 players. The bottom seven often do include special teamers, who are sometimes cut and re-signed several times during the year. But make no mistake. Belichick will often carry many players who primary function is special teams.

Posters disagree with belichick's approach to special teams every season. Every season, posters say that we cannot "afford" to carry a LB or S who are primarily special teamers. And, every year, Belichick disagrees.

THE CORE AND BOTTOM TEN POSITIONS
The bottom ten positions can be used for lots of things: position backups in case of injury, developmental players and special teams. To me, 43 roster players are needed in a addition to addition special teamers. These 43, plus additional special teamers, will get almost all the reps.

OFFFENSE (19)
QB (2)
WR (4)
RB (3)
FB (1)
TE (2)
OL (7)

DEFENSE (19)
DL (7)
LB (5)
CB (4)
S (3)

SPECIAL TEAMS (5)
K (1)
P (1)
LS (1)
ST (2)

The highest priority in the bottom 10 positions for winning a game, or winning this season is likely to be special teams. Then, we often have developmental players (including rookies). Position backups, in addition to what is included in the 43, is often 3rd in priority.

To put in another way, if the 43 positions above were filled, I would first add our top draft choices and then look to special teams. For example, the top 43 likely doesn't include a kick returner.

 

[patfanken]

I think you bring up some important points in you post MG about special teams, I've been thinking a lot about them recently and perhaps this should be a separate topic. But briefly I've been wondering more and more about how really important special teams are anymore relative to the rest of the game. Improved skills by the kickers and rules changes have been eroding the importance of the kicking game for a few years now.

What good is having a great KO cover guy when 70% of KO's are never returned. Punters have elevated their game to the point where the number of punts that are returned have greatly diminished (though not to the level of KO returns....yet).

So let me ask the hard question. We have an all pro special teamer who counts over $2MM against the cap and has no role other than special teams. Given that the number of plays that he can impact the game has shrunk significantly, couldn't the Pats get better value using a player who can do other things and for a lesser cap charge than our own beloved Matthew Slater (failed WR and S)

For example Thompkins and Boyce would seem to be on the Roster bubble, but both offer potential benefits on the regular offense. Couldn't either or both replace what Slater does as the gunner on the punt return. Or perhaps Dennard could replace him since he might see his snaps go down now that Browner is here. There are lots of choices

In your roster make up above, you designate 7 DB's. Well, you know better than I that that number is going to be a lot closer to 10 in reality. The way football is played these days, 10 DB's is almost the minimum teams will carry, especially since DB's are the prime area for your coverage teams (such that they are these days).

Everyone seems to think Slater is a sure lock to make the roster. No one likes him more than me, but SHOULD he be a lock? Or perhaps the better question would be, does he NEED to be?

 

[mayoclinic]

I think you bring up some important points in you post MG about special teams, I've been thinking a lot about them recently and perhaps this should be a separate topic. But briefly I've been wondering more and more about how really important special teams are anymore relative to the rest of the game. Improved skills by the kickers and rules changes have been eroding the importance of the kicking game for a few years now.

What good is having a great KO cover guy when 70% of KO's are never returned. Punters have elevated their game to the point where the number of punts that are returned have greatly diminished (though not to the level of KO returns....yet).

So let me ask the hard question. We have an all pro special teamer who counts over $2MM against the cap and has no role other than special teams. Given that the number of plays that he can impact the game has shrunk significantly, couldn't the Pats get better value using a player who can do other things and for a lesser cap charge than our own beloved Matthew Slater (failed WR and S)

For example Thompkins and Boyce would seem to be on the Roster bubble, but both offer potential benefits on the regular offense. Couldn't either or both replace what Slater does as the gunner on the punt return. Or perhaps Dennard could replace him since he might see his snaps go down now that Browner is here. There are lots of choices

In your roster make up above, you designate 7 DB's. Well, you know better than I that that number is going to be a lot closer to 10 in reality. The way football is played these days, 10 DB's is almost the minimum teams will carry, especially since DB's are the prime area for your coverage teams (such that they are these days).

Everyone seems to think Slater is a sure lock to make the roster. No one likes him more than me, but SHOULD he be a lock? Or perhaps the better question would be, does he NEED to be?

I agree with much of what you say, but regardless of what we think Slater IS a lock to make this team. Only one person's opinion matters in that regard, and it's clear how much he values Slater. A similar argument has been made about the long snapper in year's past, but BB has always found enough value in that position to keep someone who has no other duties (as do pretty much every other team in the NFL).

It is very clear that the further down you are on the depth chart, the more you need to be able to make an impact on special teams to merit a roster spot. It's also very clear that a marginal player who excels on special teams will get a game day spot over a better positional player who doesn't play special teams, but who is still near the bottom of the positional depth chart.

 

[zydecochris]

You make a good point. BB has always stressed all three phases of the game including special teams. But the importance of the kicking game is clearly decreasing as you say, particularly on kickoffs (with some talk of eliminating kickoffs altogether). BB has always seemed to be fairly adaptable (e.g., the recent defensive changes), I've really been surprised that he hasn't adapted yet in this area, to de-emphasis pure special team players in order to keep more developmental players on offense and defense (who ideally contribute to special teams also). Perhaps it will happen this year. Or, perhaps not.

I think you bring up some important points in you post MG about special teams, I've been thinking a lot about them recently and perhaps this should be a separate topic. But briefly I've been wondering more and more about how really important special teams are anymore relative to the rest of the game. Improved skills by the kickers and rules changes have been eroding the importance of the kicking game for a few years now.

What good is having a great KO cover guy when 70% of KO's are never returned. Punters have elevated their game to the point where the number of punts that are returned have greatly diminished (though not to the level of KO returns....yet).

So let me ask the hard question. We have an all pro special teamer who counts over $2MM against the cap and has no role other than special teams. Given that the number of plays that he can impact the game has shrunk significantly, couldn't the Pats get better value using a player who can do other things and for a lesser cap charge than our own beloved Matthew Slater (failed WR and S)

For example Thompkins and Boyce would seem to be on the Roster bubble, but both offer potential benefits on the regular offense. Couldn't either or both replace what Slater does as the gunner on the punt return. Or perhaps Dennard could replace him since he might see his snaps go down now that Browner is here. There are lots of choices

In your roster make up above, you designate 7 DB's. Well, you know better than I that that number is going to be a lot closer to 10 in reality. The way football is played these days, 10 DB's is almost the minimum teams will carry, especially since DB's are the prime area for your coverage teams (such that they are these days).

Everyone seems to think Slater is a sure lock to make the roster. No one likes him more than me, but SHOULD he be a lock? Or perhaps the better question would be, does he NEED to be?

 

[doesntmatter1]

Slater is a lock because he is one of the best gunners I have ever seen and basically eliminates the threat of a Devin Hester. On this roster, I suppose Arrington is the next best gunner but after that I haven't seen anyone do it nearly as well. From memory, the best gunners in order were Slater, Arrington, Jonathan Wilhite, Kelly Washington, Cole, Malcolm Williams, and Kannoris Davis. Alot of these guys were patriots for years and Slater is leagues better than them. Slater is the modern Izzo or a younger Kasim Osgood.

 

[doesntmatter1]

The one player I would love to see evolve would be Ebner. He looks like a linebacker but has the speed of a db. This could very well be the year a promising rookie pushes him off the roster. Hell, since Ebner has basically been a st guy even in his college days, he might be an excellent candidate for the infamous shadow roster

 

[Ivan]

I heard a lengthy interview with Belichick last season where Special teams were the primary topic and he was talking about how losing a speical teamer can at times be more devastating than losing a starter because they could play on 4-5 different units and replacing them could mean having to do so with multiple players, so Mgteich's emphasis on ST roles determining roster spots is well taken imo. However unless and until we actually know who plays what on each unit it is really hard looking at it from the outside to understand who is ahead of who in those battles.

 

[Ivan]

The one player I would love to see evolve would be Ebner. He looks like a linebacker but has the speed of a db. This could very well be the year a promising rookie pushes him off the roster. Hell, since Ebner has basically been a st guy even in his college days, he might be an excellent candidate for the infamous shadow roster

I don't know what the safety situation is in Houston, nor the ST situation but if there is any room I think Vrabel would push O'Brien to grab up Ebner if he became available.

 

[Ivan]

Everyone seems to think Slater is a sure lock to make the roster. No one likes him more than me, but SHOULD he be a lock? Or perhaps the better question would be, does he NEED to be?

I think it is likely that Slater is exactly the kind of player Belichick was referring to when talking about ST units. he probably plays on every unit and excels on all of them, so Belichick sees his contribution as every bit as important if not more important than some starters.

 

[patchick]

Everyone seems to think Slater is a sure lock to make the roster. No one likes him more than me, but SHOULD he be a lock? Or perhaps the better question would be, does he NEED to be?

It's a totally reasonable question to ask, but I say yes, absolutely.

There are 10 punt plays per game in the NFL. That means that Slater is guaranteed to be one of the most important players on the field for 10 plays a game in the punting game alone. And even with the decreasing emphasis on kickoffs, Slater is not only the gunner on coverage but helps set alignments, and is the deep blocker telling the KR whether or not to take the ball out of the endzone. That's the stuff that doesn't seem to matter until you see it done ineptly.

Then consider Slater's role as ST captain and the value he adds in practice and meetings. And more, consider that SOMEBODY would still have to be the ST leader...and it shouldn't be a starter, and it shouldn't be a player who would ever be a healthy scratch, and it shouldn't be a bubble player who gets cut and re-signed throwing ST into constant flux. And Slater is the best.

IMO the chances that an end-of-the-roster player chosen because he's stronger on offense or defense would add more value as player #53 are spectacularly small.

 

[Ivan]

It's a totally reasonable question to ask, but I say yes, absolutely.

There are 10 punt plays per game in the NFL. That means that Slater is guaranteed to be one of the most important players on the field for 10 plays a game in the punting game alone. And even with the decreasing emphasis on kickoffs, Slater is not only the gunner on coverage but helps set alignments, and is the deep blocker telling the KR whether or not to take the ball out of the endzone. That's the stuff that doesn't seem to matter until you see it done ineptly.

Then consider Slater's role as ST captain and the value he adds in practice and meetings. And more, consider that SOMEBODY would still have to be the ST leader...and it shouldn't be a starter, and it shouldn't be a player who would ever be a healthy scratch, and it shouldn't be a bubble player who gets cut and re-signed throwing ST into constant flux. And Slater is the best.

IMO the chances that an end-of-the-roster player chosen because he's stronger on offense or defense would add more value as player #53 are spectacularly small.

I agree completely. We tend to focus upon the more obvious needs in terms of starters and depth but don't recognize the actual complexity of constructing a roster that has all of the units and their needs taken into consideration. So when Belichick is paring the roster down the the final 53 he is looking at his actual 45 game day roster, all of the unit needs and depth for each of them, and how they all fit together, and I would have to think his ST coaches are integral to helping him create a final roster that has every base covered, as you really can't go into a game with only one gunner, watch Slater go down,and have no player available to step in or you end up watching the PR on the other team god 75 yards for the winning TD because you didn't cover every base.

 

[patfanken]

It's a totally reasonable question to ask, but I say yes, absolutely.

There are 10 punt plays per game in the NFL. That means that Slater is guaranteed to be one of the most important players on the field for 10 plays a game in the punting game alone. And even with the decreasing emphasis on kickoffs, Slater is not only the gunner on coverage but helps set alignments, and is the deep blocker telling the KR whether or not to take the ball out of the endzone. That's the stuff that doesn't seem to matter until you see it done ineptly.

Then consider Slater's role as ST captain and the value he adds in practice and meetings. And more, consider that SOMEBODY would still have to be the ST leader...and it shouldn't be a starter, and it shouldn't be a player who would ever be a healthy scratch, and it shouldn't be a bubble player who gets cut and re-signed throwing ST into constant flux. And Slater is the best.

IMO the chances that an end-of-the-roster player chosen because he's stronger on offense or defense would add more value as player #53 are spectacularly small.

Well, PC, when the time comes to make the final decision, Slater should hire you to make his case, because it couldn't be done any better.

Just one point as the contrarian on this position. I thought about the importance of his role during punts. First I question your depiction of there being 10 punts per side in each game. I think 10 punts total for both teams is more likely. Hopefully teams that play the Pats D this year will be punting 10 times per game.

Secondly, I wonder what the percentage of punts vs those returned are. In the old days punters would just rear back and boom them as far as they could. Recently I think punters are more skilled and selective with a premium being put on height and direction to significantly limit the number of returns....thus limiting the importance of the gunner.

However, that being said, you made a number of other good points on the plus side, especially about the leadership role he plays. Good job.

 

[patfanken]

I agree completely. We tend to focus upon the more obvious needs in terms of starters and depth but don't recognize the actual complexity of constructing a roster that has all of the units and their needs taken into consideration.

I don't think I was diminishing the importance that special teams have played in the past. That's the key phrase thought Ivan, "the past". The game is changing. We used to keep as many as 10 LB's in the early 2000's, now it will be surprising if we keep more than 5. Why? because the game has changed. There are many different priorities.

I'm not even saying that on the one or 2 time when a punt is actually returned against the Pats, Slater isn't great at being the gunner, but is he THAT much better than guys like Dennard, Wilson, Ebner, or any of another half dozen fast, tough, and workhard guys for those couple of plays to justify a roster spot.

Actually I think before we get more into this discussion, we need some numbers like:

How many times do the Pats punt each game on average?

How many times are punts returned against them on average?

Remember the Pats (even last year) were a pretty good offense, and many times, even when they were punting, they were usually punting from beyond their own 40, and very few punts are ever returned that are kicked from there.

Again I'm not sure making a change IS the right move, I'm just wondering.

 

[patfanken]

I don't think I was diminishing the importance that special teams have played in the past. That's the key phrase thought Ivan, "the past". The game is changing. We used to keep as many as 10 LB's in the early 2000's, now it will be surprising if we keep more than 5. Why? because the game has changed. There are many different priorities.

I'm not even saying that on the one or 2 times when a punt is actually returned against the Pats, Slater isn't great at being the gunner, but is he THAT much better than guys like Dennard, Wilson, Ebner, or any of another half dozen fast, tough, and workhard guys for those couple of plays to justify a roster spot.

Actually I think before we get more into this discussion, we need some numbers like:

How many times do the Pats punt each game on average?

How many times are punts returned against them on average?

Remember the Pats (even last year) were a pretty good offense, and many times, even when they were punting, they were usually punting from beyond their own 40, and very few punts are ever returned that are kicked from there.

Again I'm not sure making a change IS the right move. Patchick made a powerful and compelling case. I'm just wondering.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, we can make the assessment about the relative importance of the 7th wide receiver vs. the #1 or #2 special teamer. I think that for Belichick the answer is clear. How about the #5 DE. How many plays did Bequette contribute on last year? How about the 9th DB (Wilson)?

Yes, we could choose the weaken the KR and PR defense, daring the other teams to return kicks and punts. Yes, we could weaken our punt return team so that teams would again kick away, hoping for 60 yards or more kicks. Yes, we could weaken our kick return units so that teams could pooch kicks to come down on the 10 yards line instead of into the end zone, to give them a reasonable shot at getting the ball.

EVERY YEAR since this board has started has been the year that posters think that Belichick should be prudent and stop having so many quality special teamers. Posters would get rid of special teams only players, and even players whose primary role is special teams. Every year posters want to carry more receivers and defensive front seven people who will never see the field unless there are at least two injuries to that unit, and perhaps three. None of this is new or IMHO more advisable now.

It is difficult to predict when there will be major strategic changes by a team, just as it difficult to predict stock market changes, or other turning points. For me, I expect Belichick to act as he always has, putting a strong emphasis on special teams. And, for me, just as in every other year, I respect, understand and support Belichick's decision.

Well, PC, when the time comes to make the final decision, Slater should hire you to make his case, because it couldn't be done any better.

Just one point as the contrarian on this position. I thought about the importance of his role during punts. First I question your depiction of there being 10 punts per side in each game. I think 10 punts total for both teams is more likely. Hopefully teams that play the Pats D this year will be punting 10 times per game.

Secondly, I wonder what the percentage of punts vs those returned are. In the old days punters would just rear back and boom them as far as they could. Recently I think punters are more skilled and selective with a premium being put on height and direction to significantly limit the number of returns....thus limiting the importance of the gunner.

However, that being said, you made a number of other good points on the plus side, especially about the leadership role he plays. Good job.

 

[mgteich]

I agree completely.

I would only add the top couple of special teamers are closer to being Player 43 than to being Player 53.

It's a totally reasonable question to ask, but I say yes, absolutely.

There are 10 punt plays per game in the NFL. That means that Slater is guaranteed to be one of the most important players on the field for 10 plays a game in the punting game alone. And even with the decreasing emphasis on kickoffs, Slater is not only the gunner on coverage but helps set alignments, and is the deep blocker telling the KR whether or not to take the ball out of the endzone. That's the stuff that doesn't seem to matter until you see it done ineptly.

Then consider Slater's role as ST captain and the value he adds in practice and meetings. And more, consider that SOMEBODY would still have to be the ST leader...and it shouldn't be a starter, and it shouldn't be a player who would ever be a healthy scratch, and it shouldn't be a bubble player who gets cut and re-signed throwing ST into constant flux. And Slater is the best.

IMO the chances that an end-of-the-roster player chosen because he's stronger on offense or defense would add more value as player #53 are spectacularly small.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Usually BB has to carry a few whose only contribution is ST. But as the overall talent level has increased, we are finding players that can play well in both modes. E.g. T. Wilson, Patrick Chung, La Fell, or James Anderson. There are fewer that are that good, as to be carried or needed, for only their ST abilities, like Slater and/or Ebner, needed to fill out a respectable ST roster. Marginal ST specialists like Hull or White, may be squeezed out, instead.

I think Ken's logic could get some traction with the marginal offensive/defensive players who aren't ST superstars, but
Slater:Gunner::Revis:CB.
I think if you have the best player in the game at a position, even if it's a rotational one like gunner/ST captain or run-stopping LB, you can afford to pay him $2M a season. The more interesting question is whether the reduced emphasis on kickoffs and his experience with depth issues on defense in recent years might not get Belichick to change his approach to a degree. (Punting hasn't changed so much that I would expect it change his approach.) After watching his most durable players go down last year (as opposed to merely watching the secondary be decimated like in normal years), I wonder of BB might not value depth of offensive/defensive units over marginal differences in ST ability.

 

[mgteich]

So, should we PLAN on having 4 WR's injured plus all our TE's? Should we plan to lose 2 DT's and 2 LB's?
I agree that we should have solid backups, and even OK players if 2 are injured at one position. HOWEVER, I just don't think that planning to lose so many in one unit is reasonable.

I think Ken's logic could get some traction with the marginal offensive/defensive players who aren't ST superstars, but
Slater:Gunner::Revis:CB.
I think if you have the best player in the game at a position, even if it's a rotational one like gunner/ST captain or run-stopping LB, you can afford to pay him $2M a season. The more interesting question is whether the reduced emphasis on kickoffs and his experience with depth issues on defense in recent years might not get Belichick to change his approach to a degree. (Punting hasn't changed so much that I would expect it change his approach.) After watching his most durable players go down last year (as opposed to merely watching the secondary be decimated like in normal years), I wonder of BB might not value depth of offensive/defensive units over marginal differences in ST ability.