Swapping Emergency QB for Garrett Mills

[TaxPlaya]

It's becoming more obvious to me that the breakdown of personnel on the offense will be a bit different this year than "textbook." The key to the whole thing is the versatility of Garrett Mills.

Normally, we carry about 26 players on offense (24 if you factor out the kicker and the long snapper).

Of the remaining 24, it usually breaks down:

3 QB
5 WR
3 TE
5 RB
8 OL

This year, however, there is a decided weakness at the bottom end of both WR and QB. There is also decided depth on OL, RB, and TE.

That tells me that there will be one less QB retained, and a sort of utility player added on. That's where Mills comes in. His Kevin Turner-like ability to be both a TE and a FB creates more value on offense than an emergency QB we'd likely never see (and would have given up on the season if we did, anyway). Here is my best guess of the non-ST offensive roster:

QB (2): Brady, Cassell
WR (5): Branch, Caldwell, Jackson, Brown, Childress/Kight
TE (3): Graham, Watson, Thomas
RB (6): Dillon, Maroney, Faulk, Pass, Mills, Cobbs/Evans
OL (8): Light, Mankins, Koppen, Hochstein, Neal, O'Callahan, Kazcur, Gorin/Brit/

Each of the players there has some good value. A third-string QB brings nothing to the table. If he is in, the season is done anyway.

For those obsessed with having 3 QB, here is my question--which of the above players would you cut to make room:

--you certainly can't cut a QB
--with Branch being unreasonable and Jackson hurt, we don't want to risk Childress/Kight getting picked up, and we may need both early on
--the TEs are solid across the board
--the O-line gets too banged up not to carry 8 solid guys
--your best argument would be for the Cobbs/Evans slot, but those guys have looked pretty good (esp Cobbs). You'd have to make an argument that a 3rd QB whom we would likely never use would be more valuable than the 15 or so touches that sixth back would give us (never mind the depth).

All I'm saying is that maybe carrying 3 QBs is not all it's cracked up to be.

 

[arrellbee]

Here is the way Belichick constructed the opening day rosters for 2000 to 2005 in terms of position count.

 

[shakadave]

Mills is already the 38th most valuable player on the team.

I would even argue for 9 O-linemen.

A #3 QB has always struck me as a waste. If it comes to that, just put Mills in there! Or Wilfork for some quarterback sneaks!

 

[Zuma]

Think I heard the boys on BCN mention before the 'zona game that Faulk may be considered an emergency QB.

 

[Pats726]

I think that in some cases that having 3 QBs makes sense..,you have a vet to help guide things and a young one to groom...but that is NOT the case this year..a vet is not needed per se..and Cassel is moving up strongly. At first it seems 3 is the right number, but the only tme a 3rd would come into play would be if 2 are injured in the game. It does happen, but rarely. And that is why Faulk could be the emergency QB... If they need a QB, I am sure one can be found in the week from one game to the next. There should be a QB on the PSqd, so that having a QB in practice is there and there is also a possible Shadow Roster QB waiting...It may be a bit of a gamble, but I think it's worth it this year.

 

[mgteich]

The "norm" is 25 on offense, adding one OL to your list below.

I don't think we need 6 running backs. We haven't carried even 5 since 2002. We don't have a real FB position. I agree with five running backs, including the H-back position that Mills will fill, but that is because we have Mills; otherwise four is fine. My roster yesterday had 23 on offense. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. Arallbee's table shows why. 8 is short one at OL. We should have 5 starters, 2 back-ups inside (G/C), 2 back-up's outside (OT).

So I'm fine with 2 QB's, but realize that the position is really going to the Defense. Of course, we need an emergency #3 QB (Faulk?). Also, we should have at least one QB on the Practice Squad.

It's becoming more obvious to me that the breakdown of personnel on the offense will be a bit different this year than "textbook." The key to the whole thing is the versatility of Garrett Mills.

Normally, we carry about 26 players on offense (24 if you factor out the kicker and the long snapper).

Of the remaining 24, it usually breaks down:

3 QB
5 WR
3 TE
5 RB
8 OL

This year, however, there is a decided weakness at the bottom end of both WR and QB. There is also decided depth on OL, RB, and TE.

That tells me that there will be one less QB retained, and a sort of utility player added on. That's where Mills comes in. His Kevin Turner-like ability to be both a TE and a FB creates more value on offense than an emergency QB we'd likely never see (and would have given up on the season if we did, anyway). Here is my best guess of the non-ST offensive roster:

QB (2): Brady, Cassell
WR (5): Branch, Caldwell, Jackson, Brown, Childress/Kight
TE (3): Graham, Watson, Thomas
RB (6): Dillon, Maroney, Faulk, Pass, Mills, Cobbs/Evans
OL (8): Light, Mankins, Koppen, Hochstein, Neal, O'Callahan, Kazcur, Gorin/Brit/

Each of the players there has some good value. A third-string QB brings nothing to the table. If he is in, the season is done anyway.

For those obsessed with having 3 QB, here is my question--which of the above players would you cut to make room:

--you certainly can't cut a QB
--with Branch being unreasonable and Jackson hurt, we don't want to risk Childress/Kight getting picked up, and we may need both early on
--the TEs are solid across the board
--the O-line gets too banged up not to carry 8 solid guys
--your best argument would be for the Cobbs/Evans slot, but those guys have looked pretty good (esp Cobbs). You'd have to make an argument that a 3rd QB whom we would likely never use would be more valuable than the 15 or so touches that sixth back would give us (never mind the depth).

All I'm saying is that maybe carrying 3 QBs is not all it's cracked up to be.

 

[mgteich]

Thank you for the post. Ian should make it a sticky. My "norm" has always been:

3 QB
4 RB/FB/Hback
5 WR
3 TE
9 OL
1 R

This year the 9 OL spot and the 3rd QB position seem gone.
The returner is Andrews.
One spot goes to the defense.

Here is the way Belichick constructed the opening day rosters for 2000 to 2005 in terms of position count.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Don't be surprised if BB brings Vinny in.

BB has a history with Vinny and Vinny could help tutor Matt while being the #3.

Not saying it will happen but don't be surprised if it does.

 

[Oswlek]

I must say that I will be surprised if NE doesn't have a 3rd QB on the roster by the time the season starts.

Sure, if both Cassell and Brady go down with major injuries, the season is likely over. It is entirely plausible, however that both QBs go out with minor injuries that prohibit them from returning in that game, but will lead to only 1-2 missed games. The season is certainly not over, and just having a competent 3rd QB can be the difference between winning a couple games and losing 2-3 (the missed game/s and the game that Cassell is knocked out in).

And I know that people like to say that we could just use someone like Faulk who played QB before, but that really isn't viable. Is Faulk going to practice as a QB or a RB? Unless he practices as a QB, then he is virtually useless when he comes in.

Lastly, the 3rd QB is the most efficient roster spot (not in actually playing ability - of course), as they don't count towards the game day actives.

 

[Urgent]

The third QB is there in case there are injuries to two QB's in a single game, and secondarily to make sure the back-ups all know the system.

However, in a case where you have only two, should one get injured, you would tell the second not to run and you'd keep extra tight ends and backs in for blocking.

If Brady is injured, the Patriots would immediately pick up a third QB, to back up Cassel.

Guys still out there include:
Kerry Collins - should be able to come in and quickly back up at QB
Tommy Maddox - capable back-up QB
Vinnie Testaverde - familiar with Belichick's system
Kliff Kingsbury - talent drop-off, but trained in Pats' system

Note that placing a veteran on the roster on Game One guarantees his salary. It may make sense to pick up one of these guys later in the season if the need arises.

 

[AllabouttheVinces]

Here is the way Belichick constructed the opening day rosters for 2000 to 2005 in terms of position count.

Great post. This is the kind of stuff we read this board for. Your data supports the theory we won't carry 6 RBs. With Pass on PUP and Cobbs on the PS, it will be 4 or 5.

One name to add to the mix on the O-Line is Mruczkowski. If we cut him, he'll probably end up as the starter for Cleveland. Romeo's crew has had 3 injuries at C already. How ready is Koppen? Mruc could add depth if Koppen's not 100%.

No way Bramlett or Mortenson make the 53. One or both will be on the PS. Only chance for a 3rd QB is if BB likes a vet out there. I don't see it happening.

 

[PYPER]

QB (2): Brady, Cassell
WR (5): Branch, Caldwell, Jackson, Brown, Childress/Kight
TE (3): Graham, Watson, Thomas
RB (6): Dillon, Maroney, Faulk, Pass, Mills, Cobbs/Evans
OL (8): Light, Mankins, Koppen, Hochstein, Neal, O'Callahan, Kazcur, Gorin/Brit/

I mostly agree with you although I don't see Pass being even close to making this team. I like Cobbs alot but he seems a bit redundant to me. He's another Kevin Faulk. We just don't have any room for him. I think BB will try to place keep him on the PS but someone will take him from us, probably Mangini. Evans is the guy I'd keep. He's a great inside runner in short yardage situations and he can also play FB. He brings something different to the table.

As far as two or three QB's. I think it's going to be two. If we do get in a bind, I don't think we're any worse off with Faulk lining up back there than we would be with one of these other guys. Those other guys aren't anywhere near ready.

As far as a long term solution if Brady gets hurt. That's when BB would go after a veteran. I still maintain that Flutie is part of our "shadow roster" and would come out of retirement if we really needed him to.

 

[patchick]

I must say that I will be surprised if NE doesn't have a 3rd QB on the roster by the time the season starts.

Sure, if both Cassell and Brady go down with major injuries, the season is likely over. It is entirely plausible, however that both QBs go out with minor injuries that prohibit them from returning in that game, but will lead to only 1-2 missed games. The season is certainly not over, and just having a competent 3rd QB can be the difference between winning a couple games and losing 2-3 (the missed game/s and the game that Cassell is knocked out in).

I was arguing the same thing for a long time, but I'm starting to come around to the 2-qb camp. Yes, if Brady and Cassel both go down in the same game you're out of luck for that game. But Casey Bramlet--and maybe another QB soon to be cut somewhere--will be waiting on the PS for next week, to be backed up by an emergency vet-for-hire. It's a calculated risk, but arguably better than signing a JAG to take up a precious roster spot from the bench all year.

 

[AzPatsFan]

It's becoming more obvious to me that the breakdown of personnel on the offense will be a bit different this year than "textbook." The key to the whole thing is the versatility of Garrett Mills.

Normally, we carry about 26 players on offense (24 if you factor out the kicker and the long snapper).

Of the remaining 24, it usually breaks down:

3 QB
5 WR
3 TE
5 RB
8 OL

This year, however, there is a decided weakness at the bottom end of both WR and QB. There is also decided depth on OL, RB, and TE.

That tells me that there will be one less QB retained, and a sort of utility player added on. That's where Mills comes in. His Kevin Turner-like ability to be both a TE and a FB creates more value on offense than an emergency QB we'd likely never see (and would have given up on the season if we did, anyway). Here is my best guess of the non-ST offensive roster:

QB (2): Brady, Cassell
WR (5): Branch, Caldwell, Jackson, Brown, Childress/Kight
TE (3): Graham, Watson, Thomas
RB (6): Dillon, Maroney, Faulk, Pass, Mills, Cobbs/Evans
OL (8): Light, Mankins, Koppen, Hochstein, Neal, O'Callahan, Kazcur, Gorin/Brit/

Each of the players there has some good value. A third-string QB brings nothing to the table. If he is in, the season is done anyway.

For those obsessed with having 3 QB, here is my question--which of the above players would you cut to make room:

--you certainly can't cut a QB
--with Branch being unreasonable and Jackson hurt, we don't want to risk Childress/Kight getting picked up, and we may need both early on
--the TEs are solid across the board
--the O-line gets too banged up not to carry 8 solid guys
--your best argument would be for the Cobbs/Evans slot, but those guys have looked pretty good (esp Cobbs). You'd have to make an argument that a 3rd QB whom we would likely never use would be more valuable than the 15 or so touches that sixth back would give us (never mind the depth).

All I'm saying is that maybe carrying 3 QBs is not all it's cracked up to be.

I disagree.

First this team will be a 53+2 PUP team. Pass and Kaycur will be puped, and can join the team at mid-season after a couple of guys are IRed, as is statistically likely.

One of the additions, will be an O lineman, so both Gorin and Britt make it, assuming Gorin is not traded. The other is more questionable. I also don't know if Childress makes it, or is PSed. I suspect the Pats may elect to keep an additional defensive player or ST instead. there is sure no other QB worth carrying on the 53, than Brady and Cassel.

I also think that BB may keep both kickers for a short time. I suspect that teams needing a kicker will see who is cut; off of our competition, it appears we have two guys who are good enough to win a job. BB may hold both until he can spring a draft pick out of some desperate team, who thinks they will get a free pickup vai the FA/waiver wire.

It will also be insurance to see the rookie Ghost, in a real game pressure situation.