The Lee Smith conundrum

[sbpatfan]

KO's were HUGE ST's now... no e3ffing way. Keep the guy for Punts???

It seems to me the new NFL ST is a lesser role b/c KO's r gone:bricks:

we signed that CB from TCU hopefully he can play CB at Pro level but he is a ST stud.

Make Tate your ST gunner y do we hold Slater on a team when ST's is not a HUGE factor like it once was I pay attention, but a **** **** age is upon us and ST's don't mean a lot anymore

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you propose Tate to be the gunner?

 

[ay-yo]

I'm not saying that we will have ST-only guys because we have always had ST-only guys. I'm saying that the reasons why we've always had ST-only guys still apply, and moving kickoffs up 5 yards isn't going to change that. Excelling at punt coverage and kickoff coverage will still be some of the most cost-effective ways to save yardage out there, and those guys will still contribute more than a bottom-of-the-depth-chart player who doesn't excel on special teams possibly could.

It's not cost effective if there is a guy who will already make the roster who can do the job equally as well.

I never mentioned bottom of the depth players. In fact I brought up the fact that the Pats use starters on ST. What makes you so sure a ST only player would be so much better IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS YEAR'S ROSTER. Previously we had a defense that was deemed incredibly slow and old. Do you think this had nothing to do with the fact that they weren't good on ST?

 

[part-timer]

Malcolm Williams definitely has the right mentality to go out and contribute on ST, and he'll get his chance in training camp to earn a role and beat out some of the other specialists. May happen, may not- impossible to predict at this point.

Tate, though? Setting aside the fact that you're asking a starting WR to be a gunner, what makes you think that he would be any good at it? Special Teams requires its own skill set, a very specific kind of mentality, and a whole lot of practice.

And kickoffs aren't gone. I agree that moving them to the 35 yard line is dumb and does make them less important, but every kickoff isn't going to be a touchback, and that means you still have to cover them well. Not to mention punt coverage.

For some one who considers himself as well versed in the ways of the NFL and the Pats it must be obvious to you that moveing the kick off BACK to the 35 yd. line again drasticly changes the kick off dynamics. First of all the kicks will be higher instead of longer requireing less distance to be covered in more time. Secondly the kick off team must line up within 5 yds. of the ball eliminateing the long running head starts for the kicking team,further reduceing the impact of the speedy gunners. Lastly the receiveing teams will be five yards closer to their recievers, allowing them a better opurtunity to get back and set up a return.
All this will combine into makeing it more important to have larger ST players who stay in their lanes and can't be forced out of them, than to have speedy gunners to beat the coverage back to the recievers. Putting the priority back on size instead of speed.

 

[TheSolderKing]

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you propose Tate to be the gunner?

Gunners it don't matter now.




Mr. I suck @ WR and play ST and waste a roster spot- he has no place on this team gunner or not. It can be replaced w/ in. ST is no BIG deal anymore you get it?:bricks:

 

[TheSolderKing]

For some one who considers himself as well versed in the ways of the NFL and the Pats it must be obvious to you that moveing the kick off BACK to the 35 yd. line again drasticly changes the kick off dynamics. First of all the kicks will be higher instead of longer requireing less distance to be covered in more time. Secondly the kick off team must line up within 5 yds. of the ball eliminateing the long running head starts for the kicking team,further reduceing the impact of the speedy gunners. Lastly the receiveing teams will be five yards closer to their recievers, allowing them a better opurtunity to get back and set up a return.
All this will combine into makeing it more important to have larger ST players who stay in their lanes and can't be forced out of them, than to have speedy gunners to beat the coverage back to the recievers. Putting the priority back on size instead of speed.

AT LEAST you see ST's has CHANGED and there are no need for "specialists" it is good to see you have common sense.

it doesn't mattr ho plays gunner in this ****puss KO league

 

[mgteich]

Posters have have had this position every year for at least the last 15. And every year, 2-4 players make the team to play special teams (in a additon to kickers, holders and returners).

Unfortunately for ST ace's like Slater and White it no longer looks like this team has room for ST specific playes any more.

 

[TheSolderKing]

Posters have have had this position every year for at least the last 15. And every year, 2-4 players make the team to play special teams (in a additon to kickers, holders and returners).

well said.. . BUT w/ KO's killed ST is such a minute role from what ST's was all about. KO's were 80% of ST's... so we need a Slater type to cover punts?



WASTED SPOT

 

[ausbacker]

Eff slater ST's is not a huge deal anymore w/ KO's all ****ed up.


Slater cut him. I mentioned this before. Crap WR to.

KO's were HUGE ST's now... no e3ffing way. Keep the guy for Punts???

It seems to me the new NFL ST is a lesser role b/c KO's r gone:bricks:

we signed that CB from TCU hopefully he can play CB at Pro level but he is a ST stud.

Make Tate your ST gunner y do we hold Slater on a team when ST's is not a HUGE factor like it once was I pay attention, but a **** **** age is upon us and ST's don't mean a lot anymore

My God man you dribble. Ask San Diego how important a functional and capable Special Teams unit is after their 2010 season would you.

That's all that needs to be said.

 

[supafly]

I think we will still have ST only guys like always, but I do not think it will be as many. I am expecting/predicting at least ONE less player from this category, if not TWO. Regardless, I still think that there are spots that can be trimmed such as OL and maybe even CB too. (and of course, the 4 or 5 RB argument, in addition)

This whole 'adding 3 QB, possibly 4 TE' thing is overrated. Yes, there will be additions at some, and subtractions at others--same as always. However, taking a guy off of ST-only COULD be one of the first places to look.

It's a debate that will go on for 2 more months, so hunker down...

 

[TheSolderKing]

spare me the 2010 rules my goodness... where were Kickoffs then?




you lose 2011 **** KO's FTW :rocker: Slater must go

 

[Sciz]

spare me the 2010 rules my goodness... where were Kickoffs then?




you lose 2011 **** KO's FTW :rocker: Slater must go

If anything, Slater is more important on punts than KOs, because he's one of only two guys running toward the returner right away rather than one of 10.

 

[BradyFTW!]

For some one who considers himself as well versed in the ways of the NFL and the Pats it must be obvious to you that moveing the kick off BACK to the 35 yd. line again drasticly changes the kick off dynamics. First of all the kicks will be higher instead of longer requireing less distance to be covered in more time. Secondly the kick off team must line up within 5 yds. of the ball eliminateing the long running head starts for the kicking team,further reduceing the impact of the speedy gunners. Lastly the receiveing teams will be five yards closer to their recievers, allowing them a better opurtunity to get back and set up a return.
All this will combine into makeing it more important to have larger ST players who stay in their lanes and can't be forced out of them, than to have speedy gunners to beat the coverage back to the recievers. Putting the priority back on size instead of speed.

If you're arguing that the necessary skills will change noticeably, and therefore we may see some turnover as new guys come in to the dedicated ST roster spots, then I don't disagree with that. At this point, I wouldn't even hazard a guess, because I'm not going to pretend to know how these rule changes will change how special teams are done. What I am disagreeing with is the notion that special teams will suddenly become worthless, so the Pats will stop dedicating roster spots to them.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's not cost effective if there is a guy who will already make the roster who can do the job equally as well.

I never mentioned bottom of the depth players. In fact I brought up the fact that the Pats use starters on ST. What makes you so sure a ST only player would be so much better IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS YEAR'S ROSTER. Previously we had a defense that was deemed incredibly slow and old. Do you think this had nothing to do with the fact that they weren't good on ST?

The Pats use some starters on ST, sure. Every team uses some- having only 45 active roster spots makes that a necessity. Even using a few more than most other teams, however, the Pats *still* consistently have more dedicated ST spots than most other teams. Why? Because guys who contribute almost entirely on ST are typically able to have more energy, training, and cohesion in their highly specific roles. That's why a guy like Tracy White can go and beat out Marques Murrell for a roster spot (he was actually taking the old Larry Izzo/Eric Alexander role), and why Matt Slater sticks on the roster year after year. Every team in the league has starters on special teams, that's a separate issue entirely.

 

[ay-yo]

^^^

I can see your reasoning for energy but as a profesional athlete energy shouldn't be a problem. ST should be either the last play before you a long rest or the first play after a long rest.

How much training can Slater or Tracy White do if the other 58 guys are practicing offense and defense. Cohesion? If your on the ST unit you'll practice with the ST unit.

Cutting Murrell vs. cutting a guy like Butler, Wilhite, Crumpler or Faulk is different. We're talking about an UDFA who has averaged 8 tackles a year versus guys who have started multiple games in the NFL.

 

[supafly]

^^^

I can see your reasoning for energy but as a profesional athlete energy shouldn't be a problem. ST should be either the last play before you a long rest or the first play after a long rest.

How much training can Slater or Tracy White do if the other 58 guys are practicing offense and defense. Cohesion? If your on the ST unit you'll practice with the ST unit.

Cutting Murrell vs. cutting a guy like Butler, Wilhite, Crumpler or Faulk is different. We're talking about an UDFA who has averaged 8 tackles a year versus guys who have started multiple games in the NFL.

Yes, that's a good point too. I sure hope that we end up signing Tracy White, as he should be a top ST-only guy to re-up. Otherwise, that's one down right there.

 

[supafly]

After looking at the 53 man roster from 2010 and 2009, there were only 3 ST-only positions anyway. (Obviously not counting K, P, and LS)

2010: Slater, White, Murell

2009: Slater, Aiken, Alexander

-------------------

So, in 2010 Arrington replaced Aiken as the other gunner, and White replaced Alexander as the 'ghost' ILB. Belichick went with 3 both years, yet it looks like he went to a bigger group in 2010 than in 2009. Do you think that the wedge rule change that went into effect in 2010 had any impact on this decision?

It's also interesting to note that along with the kickoff change to the 35 (going back to the 1994 rules), absolutely no players are allowed to line up more than 5 yards behind the kickoff, so that they cannot get a running start ahead of time. The NFL feels this will eliminate some of the bigger collisions to some extent. So, do we now go back to a 'regular' size ST-only group, like in 2009 and past years? I think so, b/c we will need speedier guys who are more 'mid-size' but can hit--something like a safety-sized guy in my opinion.

So, it's quite possible that depending on the re-signing (or not) of Tracy White once free agency starts, that we could be going to :

--Slater (wondering if he doesn't stick now, especially considering the changing of one of our gunners to Arrington the year before. I think it may be a little higher than my original 50/50 thought now)

--White or Murrell (or someone of that position and stature if neither of them, as noted White is a FA--so he may not even be here)

--and now a regular starter, or at least someone who plays spot duty/role player, such as Jarrad Page/Brandon McGowan etc. (In other words, someone who actually plays..)

---------------

I have now said many times that I think that one of the ST-only players will be cut down in exchange for one of the younger/faster recent draftees who can actually help by not 'wasting' a roster spot...after looking at the ST-only players from the past 2 years, and considering the rule change w/ kickoffs and not being able to line up more than 5 yds behind the kickoff, I wonder if this isn't adding to this theory now even more?

 

[supafly]

Also of major note (and somewhat surprise), I noticed that the team only kept a total of 7 LB in the year 2009.

Just for comparison, they kept a total of 10 in the 2010 season.

BOTH yrs saw 4 OLB's, but in 2009 there were only 3 ILB's (Mayo, Guyton, Alexander), as opposed to last yrs' 6 ILB's (Mayo, Guyton, Fletcher, T.White, Spikes, and McKensie).

Just something to think about for those who are questioning the addition of a player or two (TE, QB), and also for those who are predicting 10 LB again. It is more than obvious that Belichick will mix and match until his heart is content, and he is able to keep everyone who can contribute. ILB could be another position that gets trimmed to 5 (Mayo, Spikes, Guyton, Fletcher, and possibly White, depending on his FA status), for a total of 9 LB, instead of last yr's 10.

--------

Since this all indirectly (or directly, depending on how you view it) ties in to the thread about the "Lee Smith/Alge Crumpler conundrum," I see it very possible that both can be kept, because room can be made in a lot of places.

 

[DaBruinz]

Eff slater ST's is not a huge deal anymore w/ KO's all ****ed up.


Slater cut him. I mentioned this before. Crap WR to.

This just goes to show your lack of understanding of the game. Moving the kick-offs 5 yards is not going to make that much difference in the game. Especially since the kicking team can no longer get an extra 10-15 yard running start.

You've mentioned this before and you were told, then, that you didn't know what you are talking about. So, please stop yammering the same thing. It didn't make you right then and it doesn't make you right now.

 

[DaBruinz]

Unfortunately for ST ace's like Slater and White it no longer looks like this team has room for ST specific playes any more.

What makes you say this??? What change in the Patriots philosophy led you to this idea?

 

[DaBruinz]

For some one who considers himself as well versed in the ways of the NFL and the Pats it must be obvious to you that moveing the kick off BACK to the 35 yd. line again drasticly changes the kick off dynamics. First of all the kicks will be higher instead of longer requireing less distance to be covered in more time. Secondly the kick off team must line up within 5 yds. of the ball eliminateing the long running head starts for the kicking team,further reduceing the impact of the speedy gunners. Lastly the receiveing teams will be five yards closer to their recievers, allowing them a better opurtunity to get back and set up a return.
All this will combine into makeing it more important to have larger ST players who stay in their lanes and can't be forced out of them, than to have speedy gunners to beat the coverage back to the recievers. Putting the priority back on size instead of speed.

For someone whom considers himself as well versed in the ways of the NFL and the Pats it must be obvious to you that not allowing the players on the kicking team to get a 10-15 yard running start on kickoffs will slow them down and all but nullify the difference in moving the kick-offs back to the 35 yard line. So, the idea that moving the kick-offs eliminates the need for speedy gunners is just absurdity and has no basis in reality. And, lastly, if you'd actually looked at the kick-off averages , you'd know that there was only 1 player who came close to kicking the ball 70+ yards a kick-off. And that was Billy Cundiff. All the others, including Stephen Gostkowski, were avg. under 65 yards.

The idea that the changes will put the priority onto size instead of speed is just unfounded.