Some interesting vets being cut/FA

[Deus Irae]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

I never said I wouldn't trade him for Adrian Peterson. Let's be realistic here. I was commenting on the fact that just about every time any RB gets released there is a chorus on here to cut Green-Ellis in favor of the other team's castoffs. Is he the best RB out there? No. Does he perform his roll on the team well? Yes.

I agree with you on the notion that getting rid of BJGE while bringing in another RB would be a mistake. He's shown the ability to work as a tandem back. Bringing in another RB (via draft, free agency or trade) should serve as an addition (and hopeful upgrade) rather than a replacement.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

What kind of point differentials did those stats come from? Against what types of defenses? How much depth was available at the position? What kind of blocking schemes was he running behind? How many times was he checked into because of a defense?

If you were playing the Patriots what would you gameplan against? Is that kind of back the type that can win you a game? Again, he's a nice player who had a great season. He played way better than he should have played but his statistics are not an accurate representation of what kind of player he is. He had better stats than Ray Rice, too. You'd rather him than Rice?

Complete, utter nonsense.

You don't prove points with jibberish.

How much money does Ray Rice want, how much does Adrian Peterson want? When Peterson played with a franchise QB in 2009, where did he stand out...besides fumbling in the NFCCG?

 

[jays52]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

Complete, utter nonsense.

You don't prove points with jibberish.

How much money does Ray Rice want, how much does Adrian Peterson want? When Peterson played with a franchise QB in 2009, where did he stand out...besides fumbling in the NFCCG?

My point is simply that there are too many variables and too much complexity in football for today's (even great stuff like football outsiders) statistics to deliver an accurate representation of a player. I like Green Ellis. Let me say that again. I like Green Ellis. I also believe that his production was a perfect storm of factors that can't be expected to manifest on a consistent basis. He's a nice role player who really played well last season but to not view production relative to ability is simply a cursory and often inaccurate observation.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

A 1000 yard rusher, 13 TDs last year, and he has NEVER fumbled.

I can't figure out why so many people continue to think Green-Ellis is some nobody that you can replace as easily as you change your socks.

Because some of those people understand blocking schemes?

Beautifull!!

 

[strngplyr]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

My point is simply that there are too many variables and too much complexity in football for today's (even great stuff like football outsiders) statistics to deliver an accurate representation of a player. I like Green Ellis. Let me say that again. I like Green Ellis. I also believe that his production was a perfect storm of factors that can't be expected to manifest on a consistent basis. He's a nice role player who really played well last season but to not view production relative to ability is simply a cursory and often inaccurate observation.

You can't really say he won't or can't do it consistently when he hasn't had the chance to. He's only played one full season, and it was a pretty good one considering our lack of solid RB's since Corey Dillon. Let him have one more year before judging his consistency.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

Green-Ellis is a decent runner.

He reads blocks well, is patient, and he doesn't fumble.

He's a solid, unspectacular back who is a nice player to give your lead backs a breath with.

He's not an NFL starting back.

He played very well last season for his potential, but he had tremendous blocking ahead of him and some truly beautiful play design to mitigate his weaknesses.

Perfect.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

My point is simply that there are too many variables and too much complexity in football for today's (even great stuff like football outsiders) statistics to deliver an accurate representation of a player. I like Green Ellis. Let me say that again. I like Green Ellis. I also believe that his production was a perfect storm of factors that can't be expected to manifest on a consistent basis. He's a nice role player who really played well last season but to not view production relative to ability is simply a cursory and often inaccurate observation.

Actually, it appears Belichick shares your concerns. Why else would we draft RB's in rounds two and three? Maybe that's why BJGE didn't really get the ball in the playoffs.

It seems your "beef" is really the dynamic between RBBC vs feature RB. Based on the Pittsburgh win, you would certainly have a case.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

Trade him for Steven Jackson.

Let's trade James Sanders for Ed Reed while we're at it.

I hear the Ravens want to get younger on the defensive backfield.

Beautifull!!

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

Complete, utter nonsense.

Actually, it was a deeply insightfull post, showing a crystal clear understanding of Reality.

But it's to be expected that you wouldn't be able to process it.

 

[letekro]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

My point is simply that there are too many variables and too much complexity in football for today's (even great stuff like football outsiders) statistics to deliver an accurate representation of a player. I like Green Ellis. Let me say that again. I like Green Ellis. I also believe that his production was a perfect storm of factors that can't be expected to manifest on a consistent basis. He's a nice role player who really played well last season but to not view production relative to ability is simply a cursory and often inaccurate observation.

I like green ellis too, but a good back would have made the Jets pay for dropping so many into coverage with a couple of 20 yard runs, rather than eeking out 4 and 5 yard gains. He's a solid player, but BJGE's lack of speed and elusiveness cost them in that game.

 

[TheComeback]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

My point is simply that there are too many variables and too much complexity in football for today's (even great stuff like football outsiders) statistics to deliver an accurate evaluation of a player. I like Green Ellis. Let me say that again. I like Green Ellis. I also believe that his production was a perfect storm of factors that can't be expected to manifest on a consistent basis. He's a nice role player who really played well last season but to not view production relative to ability is simply a cursory and often inaccurate observation.

What annoys some of us is that you keep calling him a "role player," yet he was obviously far more than that last year, and he was very effective.

Remember the vaunted Steelers run defense? They were having one of the best seasons EVER stuffing the run, and Green-Ellis pulled out 87 yards on 18 carries--that's 4.8 yards per carry, more than any other back had managed at that point the season. And most of his runs were right up the middle.

What you're trying to say is that he isn't a spectacular, big play back, and therefore should be relegated to a committee role. The problem is that we don't have a big play back like Adrian Peterson or Corey Dillon. We have a workhorse back in Green-Ellis who is supported by true role players like Danny Woodhead.

Now, this year they may very well make Green-Ellis more of a role player because we drafted some equally talented, but as yet unproven backs. I think they would've done that last year if they had the choice. But I think that's a reflection of Belichick's philosophy more than it is on Green-Ellis as a back--we've been running a committee since 2006. Even if we had an Adrian Peterson-type RB, he wouldn't be getting 300 carries a year like he does in Minnesota.

The fact is, Green-Ellis proved last year that he can carry the load. You can call him a role player all you want, but he started 15 games. He averaged 14 carries a game. The guy was tied for 2nd in the league for most touchdowns with Reshard Mendenhall and Arian Foster. And he averaged more yards per carry than Mendenhall.

That's quite the accomplishment for a guy who's just a role player. Last year Green-Ellis proved he's more than capable of being our workhorse back for a full season.

 

[Professor Frink]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

I think the offense would be better off in the long run reducing (not replacing) BJGE's role. It's great that he got 1,000 yards last season, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a limited player, ideally I'd like to see him get 120-150 carries this year.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

Actually, it appears Belichick shares your concerns. Why else would we draft RB's in rounds two and three? Maybe that's why BJGE didn't really get the ball in the playoffs.

It seems your "beef" is really the dynamic between RBBC vs feature RB. Based on the Pittsburgh win, you would certainly have a case.

BB drafted RBs in the 2nd and 3rd round because the Pats didn't have anyone but Woodhead and Clayton under contract and BJGE is an RFA. Someone might think highly enough of him to try and sign him.. Especially since it would leave the Pats hurting, even more, at RB.

 

[jays52]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

Actually, it appears Belichick shares your concerns. Why else would we draft RB's in rounds two and three? Maybe that's why BJGE didn't really get the ball in the playoffs.

It seems your "beef" is really the dynamic between RBBC vs feature RB. Based on the Pittsburgh win, you would certainly have a case.

Yeah, I see your point, man. I view BJGE not getting the ball that much in the playoffs more as a function of it being a tight dogfight. That was the meaning in my line about point differential. In the more open games the defensive calls open up the playbook for the run. If the defense declares early it's easy to check into a run that is installed in the check package. When teams are engaged in shootouts they tend to declare earlier unless they are baiting with coverage like Belichick often does. That was a tremendous factor in BJGE's production.

I like and believe in the RBBC plan, but also think it's important to establish the rhythm of the backs. Most outside guys like the RBBC because it's easy to intellectualize, and most retired pros like the lead back because they understand the rhythm of the game. Like most things the truth and veracity is in the balance. My "beef" if I even really have one is that people are over valuing BJGE based upon things that don't tell the whole story.

 

[Professor Frink]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

What annoys some of us is that you keep calling him a "role player," yet he was obviously far more than that last year, and he was very effective.

Remember the vaunted Steelers run defense? They were having one of the best seasons EVER stuffing the run, and Green-Ellis pulled out 87 yards on 18 carries--that's 4.8 yards per carry, more than any other back had managed at that point the season. And most of his runs were right up the middle.

What you're trying to say is that he isn't a spectacular, big play back, and therefore should be relegated to a committee role. The problem is that we don't have a big play back like Adrian Peterson or Corey Dillon. We have a workhorse back in Green-Ellis who is supported by true role players like Danny Woodhead.

Now, this year they may very well make Green-Ellis more of a role player because we drafted some equally talented, but as yet unproven backs. I think they would've done that last year if they had the choice. But I think that's a reflection of Belichick's philosophy more than it is on Green-Ellis as a back--we've been running a committee since 2006. Even if we had an Adrian Peterson-type RB, he wouldn't be getting 300 carries a year like he does in Minnesota.

The fact is, Green-Ellis proved last year that he can carry the load. You can call him a role player all you want, but he started 15 games. He averaged 14 carries a game. The guy was tied for 2nd in the league for most touchdowns with Reshard Mendenhall and Arian Foster. And he averaged more yards per carry than Mendenhall.

That's quite the accomplishment for a guy who's just a role player. Last year Green-Ellis proved he's more than capable of being our workhorse back for a full season.

When a running back has one of the greatest passing offenses in NFL history supporting him, he can look a lot better than he actually is.

 

[patriot lifer]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

Yeah, I see your point, man. I view BJGE not getting the ball that much in the playoffs more as a function of it being a tight dogfight. That was the meaning in my line about point differential. In the more open games the defensive calls open up the playbook for the run. If the defense declares early it's easy to check into a run that is installed in the check package. When teams are engaged in shootouts they tend to declare earlier unless they are baiting with coverage like Belichick often does. That was a tremendous factor in BJGE's production.

I like and believe in the RBBC plan, but also think it's important to establish the rhythm of the backs. Most outside guys like the RBBC because it's easy to intellectualize, and most retired pros like the lead back because they understand the rhythm of the game. Like most things the truth and veracity is in the balance. My "beef" if I even really have one is that people are over valuing BJGE based upon things that don't tell the whole story.

I feel smarter after reading this. That was beautiful.

 

[strngplyr]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

Actually, it appears Belichick shares your concerns. Why else would we draft RB's in rounds two and three? Maybe that's why BJGE didn't really get the ball in the playoffs.

It seems your "beef" is really the dynamic between RBBC vs feature RB. Based on the Pittsburgh win, you would certainly have a case.

He probably drafted 2 RB's because Faulk, Taylor, and Morris most likely won't suit up for another NFL game. Leaving us with 2 RB under contract and one that's an RFA.

Just a hunch.

 

[jays52]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

What annoys some of us is that you keep calling him a "role player," yet he was obviously far more than that last year, and he was very effective.

Remember the vaunted Steelers run defense? They were having one of the best seasons EVER stuffing the run, and Green-Ellis pulled out 87 yards on 18 carries--that's 4.8 yards per carry, more than any other back had managed at that point the season. And most of his runs were right up the middle.

What you're trying to say is that he isn't a spectacular, big play back, and therefore should be relegated to a committee role. The problem is that we don't have a big play back like Adrian Peterson or Corey Dillon. We have a workhorse back in Green-Ellis who is supported by true role players like Danny Woodhead.

Now, this year they may very well make Green-Ellis more of a role player because we drafted some equally talented, but as yet unproven backs. I think they would've done that last year if they had the choice. But I think that's a reflection of Belichick's philosophy more than it is on Green-Ellis as a back--we've been running a committee since 2006. Even if we had an Adrian Peterson-type RB, he wouldn't be getting 300 carries a year like he does in Minnesota.

The fact is, Green-Ellis proved last year that he can carry the load. You can call him a role player all you want, but he started 15 games. He averaged 14 carries a game. The guy was tied for 2nd in the league for most touchdowns with Reshard Mendenhall and Arian Foster. And he averaged more yards per carry than Mendenhall.

That's quite the accomplishment for a guy who's just a role player. Last year Green-Ellis proved he's more than capable of being our workhorse back for a full season.

I understand that and see the validity in your points. I'm just not doing a good job of articulating my main point. I simply don't think that the production tells the story of what really happened, nor do I think that he is the kind of back that enables you to win a low scoring game which is exactly the current achillies heel of the team.

Let's use the Pitt game as example. In the Beating Pitt 101 textbook on page 1, it says to spread their defense out, force them to declare Polamalu, work on the peripherals then gash them on the interior as a balance. That's exactly what they did and Green Ellis' stats supported this. Let's also not neglect the most important aspect of the run. The line last season in conjunction with the motion based tight end blocking had some gorgeous designs. They got great contributions in the run game up front last season and that lent a lot to the success of the backs. The other issue is that Green-Ellis doesn't have the plant and burst to run zone blocking. When the defense gets set and sees 42 in the backfield they know they don't have to play their zone techniques and when they read run they are fine to go with their directional techniques. That's fine if that's who you want to be but the Patriots are designed around ambiguity and flexibility. Why do you think Belichick loves tight ends so much? They don't declare anything and with a 2 TE, 1 RB set you can literally run any kind of offensive concept AND force a coverage declaration through balance. Having a unitasking back hurts this ability.

I know what I'm saying isn't popular but that shouldn't detract from it's validity.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

I'm just not doing a good job of articulating my main point.

I simply don't think that the production tells the story of what really happened, nor do I think that he is the kind of back that enables you to win a low scoring game which is exactly the current achillies heel of the team.

Let's use the Pitt game as example. In the Beating Pitt 101 textbook on page 1, it says to spread their defense out, force them to declare Polamalu, work on the peripherals then gash them on the interior as a balance. That's exactly what they did and Green Ellis' stats supported this. Let's also not neglect the most important aspect of the run. The line last season in conjunction with the motion based tight end blocking had some gorgeous designs. They got great contributions in the run game up front last season and that lent a lot to the success of the backs. The other issue is that Green-Ellis doesn't have the plant and burst to run zone blocking. When the defense gets set and sees 42 in the backfield they know they don't have to play their zone techniques and when they read run they are fine to go with their directional techniques. That's fine if that's who you want to be but the Patriots are designed around ambiguity and flexibility. Why do you think Belichick loves tight ends so much? They don't declare anything and with a 2 TE, 1 RB set you can literally run any kind of offensive concept AND force a coverage declaration through balance. Having a unitasking back hurts this ability.

I know what I'm saying isn't popular but that shouldn't detract from it's validity.

You're doing a brilliant job of articulating your point, thank you very much.

I get smarter every time I read Brother Jay's work.

 

[moosekill]

Re: Some interesting vets being cut

I understand that and see the validity in your points. I'm just not doing a good job of articulating my main point. I simply don't think that the production tells the story of what really happened, nor do I think that he is the kind of back that enables you to win a low scoring game which is exactly the current achillies heel of the team.

Let's use the Pitt game as example. In the Beating Pitt 101 textbook on page 1, it says to spread their defense out, force them to declare Polamalu, work on the peripherals then gash them on the interior as a balance. That's exactly what they did and Green Ellis' stats supported this. Let's also not neglect the most important aspect of the run. The line last season in conjunction with the motion based tight end blocking had some gorgeous designs. They got great contributions in the run game up front last season and that lent a lot to the success of the backs. The other issue is that Green-Ellis doesn't have the plant and burst to run zone blocking. When the defense gets set and sees 42 in the backfield they know they don't have to play their zone techniques and when they read run they are fine to go with their directional techniques. That's fine if that's who you want to be but the Patriots are designed around ambiguity and flexibility. Why do you think Belichick loves tight ends so much? They don't declare anything and with a 2 TE, 1 RB set you can literally run any kind of offensive concept AND force a coverage declaration through balance. Having a unitasking back hurts this ability.

I know what I'm saying isn't popular but that shouldn't detract from it's validity.

I like what you are saying because it is completely accurate. BJGE is a good back that doesn't fumble, usually gets a few yards but never ever "breaks one" He doesn't scare the opposing d's, Brady does. The other teams game plan for Brady, and in conjunction with that BJGE picks up yards and makes them pay some for it.

I would love to have someone on the team that allows the Pats to become truly two dimensional, I personally don't think BJGE does that. But at lease he doesn't suck like Maroney did.