Slater In Place Of a Quarterback For Now

[Ring 6]

Seeing you did not pick him to make the roster I can understand your
minimizing his role.
Obviously BB thinks differently than you do about BJGE.
What make you think he is behind old man Morris and dancing Maroney?
The kid carried three guys into the end zone. Does great the more he
touches the ball.
BTW, I never saw BB smile at Maroney the way he smiled at BJGE the other
night. This kid has BB's heart and Tom's also if you didn't notice.
I have little doubt that if given a shot he'll do some great things with
the starters blocking for him. 5th string

So your belief is that he is the starter at RB?

 

[bucky]

As I have said, I have a problem with Green-Ellis being on the team as a 5th RB. If someone else is #5, then that player shouldn't be on the team.

If memory serves, he started last year when Faulk was healthy. So technically he's the 4th string RB. And it's entirely possible that he'll be active week 1 and playing ST given Morris' injury. For all we know, he could have already surpassed Morris on the depth chart and Morris is on the team purely for his ST play.

 

[Ring 6]

I firmly believe that BJGE is penciled in as Faulk's understudy and future replacement.

I dont think such a penciling in exists.
Green-Ellis is on the team because at this moment BB feels he is one of the 53 players that give him the best chance to win.
I do not believe that BB projects the role a player will earn in the future. Its a waste of time because players get better or worse, or injured, rosters change, and part of getting a role is earning it day in and day out.
Also, I dont see any similarities between GE and Faulk.
If we are lookiing for a similar player, I'd say Sammy Morris is the closest.

 

[Ring 6]

If memory serves, he started last year when Faulk was healthy. So technically he's the 4th string RB. And it's entirely possible that he'll be active week 1 and playing ST given Morris' injury. For all we know, he could have already surpassed Morris on the depth chart and Morris is on the team purely for his ST play.

Thats a stretch, but even if he were ahead of Morris, that doesnt mean he will be active in game 1, unless he has earned a heavy role on sts.
I havent recognized him as a star special teamer, one that will get activated solely to play on st units.
We wouldnt activate 4 rbs unless one is one pretty much every unit in the kicking game.

 

[Ring 6]

Hmm.. maybe a consistent long-term solution at RB?

I mean, seriously, how long are Morris and Taylor going to play?

On top of which, you saw in game one how Taylor blew a couple blocks and Brady took him aside on the bench to go over those plays.

Understood that he's still learning the Patriots system, but my point is, do you want to see this happen every year when we take on more old RB that has one or two season left in them, and have to learn the Patriots system right off the bat?

Don't you think we should have at least 1 RB that's pretty knowledgeable with the patriots system that could advise incoming RB's..

As much as we'd like to deny it, Faulk is entering the twilight of his career.

I think its unlikely that his roster spot is future planning. I think he has a spot today because he was viewed as one of the 53 players we have the best chance to win with.
We arent talking about Jim Brown. The opportunity cost of losing BJGE is not being unable to replace him. There are nunerous players who could fill the role you described in a similar fashion.
As I said yesterday, he is a JAG (and that isnt an insult, everyone teetering on making or not making the roster is a JAG) but he is OUR JAG and that does have value.
We'll see how it works out.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I absolutely agree that those who would demonize Maroney make arguments that don't hold water (just like those that would canonize him). He is neither the worst nor the best runner in the league by a long shot. Personally, I'd be grateful to have him for his kick-returning alone and I hope we see more evidence of the improvement in the passing game that BB has mentioned, since I believe open field running is where he truly excels.

But I wouldn't get carried away with that success rate stat. You may notice that the league leader in 2007, whom Maroney was second to, was Kenton Keith from the Colts (which should tell you something about how a QB and passing game might impact this stat). And I'm not sure Keith is even in the league anymore.

That's definitely a good point. Really, the only caveat that I'd add there is that Keith is an outlier for a whole bunch of reasons. The #1 reason isn't because he was in the Indy offense (although that's certainly #2, and quite significant)- but rather because he only started one game, and had over 15 carries exactly twice. Situational players oftentimes end up with artificially high or artificially low success rates, depending on their roles, whereas Maroney was a workhorse in 2007.

And ultimately, I guess I just can't figure out what else you want from your RB. If he posted the best percentage in the league at something that you say is a weakness, then what were you looking for? Whether or not he actually is the best in the league at it, it's certainly not a weakness. Will people be unhappy unless our running back has the best success rate in the NFL by *at least* 5 percentage points? We want someone who can consistently grind out productive carries, and (admittedly with the benefit of a good offense) Maroney has historically done that with a great deal of effectiveness, so what's the problem?

 

[Trocadile]

We want someone who can consistently grind out productive carries, and (admittedly with the benefit of a good offense) Maroney has historically done that with a great deal of effectiveness, so what's the problem?

But, again, you overstate your case. He did that in 2007. He didn't do it last year (yes, I know the sample is small), he didn't do it this preseason (ditto), and in his other (mostly) healthy year, 2006, the two running backs he split carries with (Dillon and Faulk), both did it better than him. So, the people who aren't totally sold on him, do have some statistical ammo. Even if they don't always use it properly.

 

[bucky]

Thats a stretch, but even if he were ahead of Morris, that doesnt mean he will be active in game 1, unless he has earned a heavy role on sts.
I havent recognized him as a star special teamer, one that will get activated solely to play on st units.
We wouldnt activate 4 rbs unless one is one pretty much every unit in the kicking game.

I've seen him playing on ST, but hardly as a core player. FWIW, BB keeps saying that he's been good on ST whenever asked about him. So if Morris is out, I guess it all depends on what the other options are besides BJGE. I don't see Faulk as a major RB candidate at this point - it's doubtful he would hold up for more than 10 carries plus all his 3rd down duties. So if you've got 3 active RBs and one RB went down, you're down to 1 guy plus Faulk as the 3rd down/change of pace guy. Doable, but definitely not optimal.

 

[BradyFTW!]

But, again, you overstate your case. He did that in 2007. He didn't do it last year (yes, I know the sample is small), he didn't do it this preseason (ditto), and in his other (mostly) healthy year, 2006, the two running backs he split carries with (Dillon and Faulk), both did it better than him. So, the people who aren't totally sold on him, do have some statistical ammo. Even if they don't always use it properly.

There's a reason why FO doesn't track success rate until you get over 100 carries- when a couple of percentage points is the difference between good and bad, smaller samples just don't yield meaningful results. That's why Faulk didn't qualify for success rating, which is why saying that he does consistency better than Maroney is, in addition to being an apples-to-oranges comparison, not even technically true.

And yes, as a rookie Dillon had a higher success rate than Maroney, but he was 5th in the NFL that year. Dillon's exactly the kind of RB that we want Maroney to be. And, once again, Maroney was a rookie. I agree that the 'truth' of what type of player he is is somewhere between the 2006 and 2007 numbers, but 'somewhere between the 2006 and 2007' is an awfully good place to be, no matter where he falls on that range. Worst case scenario, he's above average, best case scenario he's very good.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I've seen him playing on ST, but hardly as a core player. FWIW, BB keeps saying that he's been good on ST whenever asked about him. So if Morris is out, I guess it all depends on what the other options are besides BJGE. I don't see Faulk as a major RB candidate at this point - it's doubtful he would hold up for more than 10 carries plus all his 3rd down duties. So if you've got 3 active RBs and one RB went down, you're down to 1 guy plus Faulk as the 3rd down/change of pace guy. Doable, but definitely not optimal.

Faulk hasn't been a major RB candidate for a long time. When Morris, Jordan and Maroney all went down, Belichick brought BJGE up even though Faulk was healthy. I started thinking of Faulk's position as entirely separate from RB quite a while ago...

 

[mgteich]

I'm not sure I follow.

Let us presume that Morris is out. Then we have Maroney, Taylor and Faulk active. If one more is injured then we are down to two running backs or a running back and a 3rd down back. You say this is doable but not optimal. Of course it isn't optimal. You just lost two players at one position! Still, it is doable to go with two of Maroney, Taylor and Faulk.

Let's try some perspective. Do we have a equally doable option if we lose 2 guards, or two OT's or 2 DL's or 2 safeties or 2 ILB's? I submit that we are better off at running back depth than at most positions even with four running backs.

I've seen him playing on ST, but hardly as a core player. FWIW, BB keeps saying that he's been good on ST whenever asked about him. So if Morris is out, I guess it all depends on what the other options are besides BJGE. I don't see Faulk as a major RB candidate at this point - it's doubtful he would hold up for more than 10 carries plus all his 3rd down duties. So if you've got 3 active RBs and one RB went down, you're down to 1 guy plus Faulk as the 3rd down/change of pace guy. Doable, but definitely not optimal.

 

[Patspsycho]

Faulk hasn't been a major RB candidate for a long time. When Morris, Jordan and Maroney all went down, Belichick brought BJGE up even though Faulk was healthy. I started thinking of Faulk's position as entirely separate from RB quite a while ago...

I think he has become an unique niche player, perhaps the only 3rd down specialist in the NFL?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think he has become an unique niche player, perhaps the only 3rd down specialist in the NFL?

There's definitely nobody quite like him, that's for sure. Around the league, he doesn't get nearly enough credit. There are other guys who have as many balls thrown at them (Forte, MJD, Bush, Westbrook, Tomlinson), but of them Bush is the only one that's not a feature back.

On the bright side, if DVOA ever gets gains widespread recognition, people will look back at Faulk and realize how good he really was. He puts up comically good DVOAs every year, because he makes exactly the sorts of contributions that it's designed to reward.

 

[bucky]

I'm not sure I follow.

Let us presume that Morris is out. Then we have Maroney, Taylor and Faulk active. If one more is injured then we are down to two running backs or a running back and a 3rd down back. You say this is doable but not optimal. Of course it isn't optimal. You just lost two players at one position! Still, it is doable to go with two of Maroney, Taylor and Faulk.

Let's try some perspective. Do we have a equally doable option if we lose 2 guards, or two OT's or 2 DL's or 2 safeties or 2 ILB's? I submit that we are better off at running back depth than at most positions even with four running backs.

You're right. And your guard example is actually a good one because the Pats kept 3 backups at G/C but only one at OT. So obviously Connoly and BJGE are better players than Paris Lenon or Ryan O'Callaghan or Alex Smith. That's why they were kept. BB obviously feels that if he needs an ILB, OT, etc. the difference between the guys he cut and the guys on the PS or street FAs is not that significant.

 

[RayClay]

Kenton Keith?

 

[billdog3484]

Green-Ellis is our 5th string halfback. No team needs a 5th string halfback.

I do think that Green-Ellis is on the team for a reason. If Game One were tomorrow, given all the nicks and bruises, Green-Ellis would be active and would play on a couple of the special teams units. There are better players available who could meet this need. For example, we could re-sign Spann.

i think BJGE is on the team for a reason as well. Yes, we have 5 RB. however, if you look at the last few years, Maroney and Morris have consistently been injured. Taylor is older. And i dont think Faulk has ever been a full time, 3 down back. so, while most teams dont go 5 deep at RB, i see the reasoning behind keeping himn. plus, hes been effective every time ive seen him, pre-season or regular season

 

[Pats726]

He obviously thinks he's a bum.....
I disagree, I think he's a player, not a star, but a solid contributor.

He obviously doesn't like him at all..I disagree as well I think he stays..just like he did last year and I think Coach B thinks so as well.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Seeing you did not pick him to make the roster I can understand your
minimizing his role.
Obviously BB thinks differently than you do about BJGE.
What make you think he is behind old man Morris and dancing Maroney?
The kid carried three guys into the end zone. Does great the more he
touches the ball.
BTW, I never saw BB smile at Maroney the way he smiled at BJGE the other
night. This kid has BB's heart and Tom's also if you didn't notice.
I have little doubt that if given a shot he'll do some great things with
the starters blocking for him. 5th string

I'll be waiting with bated breath for the game later this year that BJGE starts over a healthy Maroney.