The Offense - Some Roster Arithmetic

[mgteich]

I think of us have 24 roster positions on offense, loosely separated with half being the big guys (OL, FB and TE) and half in the "skill" positions (QB, WR and RB). IMHO, we need a minimum of the following to run the various patriot offenses.

25 (OFFENSE)
2 QB
4 WR
4 RB
4 TE/FB
8 OL
1 ST (Slater)

This leave 2 "discretionary" positions. I've seen arguments every year for adding a player to each of these groups. Some think that it is critical to have a 5th WR or a 5th RB or a 9th or a 2nd
Ster. The Practice Squad is used to have backups at the various positions, as well as for developmental players.

Sometimes developmental players have to be on the 53 (perhaps 1-3 a year).
This year, I would think a developmental QB could be on the 53, and perhaps a developmental LT.

For me, I always want a 9th OL. This year, I also want a 3rd QB. What say you all?

 

[SammyBlueCat]

I almost assigned you some laps to run.

 

[Clonamery]

I almost assigned you some laps to run.

That's better than telling him to chase his tale or lick his jetehole...

 

[maineman209]

I almost assigned you some laps to run.

And quickly.

 

[Hyped]

LOL, not getting into another Slater-is-a-WR-d%#*!@t argument .

But, yes...we need 24-5 guys on offense...with K, P, and LS taking 3 spots...gives us about 25-26 on D. I always prefer extra on D.

For me the break down should be:

2 QB
5 RB/FB
3 TE
8 OL
6 WR (including Slater, damn it)

No on a #3 QB....and maybe we get away with not having a 3rd TE by adding an extra OL-man.

 

[supafly]

I’ve got an idea. We can trust Belichick and his ability to choose a QB3, WR5, OL9, etc based on how they’re looking in camp prior to the decision being made 5 months from now.

In the meantime, speculating about the roster helps to pass the time, but is a meaningless exercise.

 

[supafly]

LOL, not getting into another Slater-is-a-WR-d%#*!@t argument .

I don’t think too many are making that argument these days, post-2014. Slater should be considered a ST only player, like Grissom, King, Cardona, Ebner, Bolden, etc. Obviously, a couple/few of these guys can actually play a backup role, but when was the last time you saw King, Bolden, or Slater playing on either side of the ball in a meaningful game?

 

[maineman209]

I don’t think too many are making that argument these days, post-2014. Slater should be considered a ST only player, like Grissom, King, Cardona, Ebner, Bolden, etc. Obviously, a couple/few of these guys can actually play a backup role, but when was the last time you saw King, Bolden, or Slater playing on either side of the ball in a meaningful game?

Exactly.

Slater typically sneaks in for a handful of WR snaps at the tail-end of well-secured wins, most often toward the end of the season.

But he's not really a WR and has never figured into the Pats positional head-count calculations - as evidenced by the fact that literally dozens of "real" WRs have come and gone from both the off-season and in-season rosters and Slater has never moved or even been in jeopardy of losing his roster spot to one of those WRs.

By about 2010 (a bit late, actually), it became clear to me that Slater was basically Larry Izzo's replacement as captain/quarterback of special teams, and that he wouldn't be replaced on the roster by a "WR" but by a successor as ST Captain. So, I stopped slotting him in with the WRs in my roster projections. Instead, my ST group became:

Punter
Kicker
Long-snapper
Special teams Captain (Slater)

Since 2013, I've included Ebner in that group (Slater's most likely heir-apparent), and, more recently, King (who has yet to play a scrimmage snap at any position).

I think that a big part of the misunderstanding about all this is that the age-old "official" positional designations simply haven't kept up with how the game has evolved and the different roles that have emerged in the modern game. Even the term "tight end" seems a bit antiquated.

As the football historians on the forum know (OTG), there were once quasi-official positions like "split end" ("X" position) and "flanker" (today's "Z") that were used to distinguish those roles from a guy who played "tight" to the formation. Instead, we have the broad term, WR, that includes "slot receivers" ("Y"), even though they're often a whole different breed and the role is often played by a guy whose official positional designation is "TE".

So, there is no official positional designation for "ST Captain", even though the "position" has existed for a couple decades now and "Special Teamer" has been a Pro Bowl spot for a few years. But, every player is required to have an official positional designation and a number that matches that position (for officiating purposes, mostly). Ergo, Slater is a "WR", like Ebner is a "Safety" and King is listed on the official roster as an "LB".

Folks who insist on taking those official positional designations literally when making roster projections, while not really taking into account what role (or roles) a player may be performing, are only doing themselves a disservice.

 

[luuked]

I’ve got an idea. We can trust Belichick and his ability to choose a QB3, WR5, OL9, etc based on how they’re looking in camp prior to the decision being made 5 months from now.

In the meantime, speculating about the roster helps to pass the time, but is a meaningless exercise.

I agree totally.

The camp roster and the team of the first 2-3 weeks in particular are never set in stone and always in flux. It is impossible to make a projection on how many slots each positional group gets without seeing the players go through camp. Sometimes you have OL player you want to protect (e.g. Croston) so you carry them on your roster whereas sometimes you have a TE or a WR that showed a lot of promise and you have to carve out a place for him over some bubble player that can be kept on the "shadow roster" anyway because there is not much risk of anyone signing him (e.g. Brandon Boldon).

I get that @mgteich wants to pass some time with thoughtful discussion and I really appreciate this over yet another "Dez ?" thread. But it really is pointless to get into deep discussion over it if camp is 4.5 months away and the roster has not even been filled yet.

We can spend 40 pages talking about the benefits of carrying another WR over a RB and then a developmental QB/TE blows everyone away at camp and we have to create a roster spot for him.

 

[maineman209]

I agree totally.

The camp roster and the team of the first 2-3 weeks in particular are never set in stone and always in flux. It is impossible to make a projection on how many slots each positional group gets without seeing the players go through camp. Sometimes you have OL player you want to protect (e.g. Croston) so you carry them on your roster whereas sometimes you have a TE or a WR that showed a lot of promise and you have to carve out a place for him over some bubble player that can be kept on the "shadow roster" anyway because there is not much risk of anyone signing him (e.g. Brandon Boldon).

I get that @mgteich wants to pass some time with thoughtful discussion and I really appreciate this over yet another "Dez ?" thread. But it really is pointless to get into deep discussion over it if camp is 4.5 months away and the roster has not even been filled yet.

We can spend 40 pages talking about the benefits of carrying another WR over a RB and then a developmental QB/TE blows everyone away at camp and we have to create a roster spot for him.

Dez?

 

[maineman209]

It is impossible to make a projection on how many slots each positional group gets without seeing the players go through camp.

This.

Without knowing the actual players, and how many roles/types of assignments they might be able to cover beyond their nominal positional designation, there's no realistic (non-arbitrary) way of determining the head counts at all the "positions" for a specific roster. Versatile players - guys who can play more than one role effectively - may save roster spots elsewhere, regardless of their positional designation.

 

[primetime]

Too early to say. Most of those positions are going to be utility or developmental, and who the Patriots will be developing is totally unknown right now.

 

[Clonamery]

This.

Without knowing the actual players, and how many roles/types of assignments they might be able to cover beyond their nominal positional designation, there's no realistic (non-arbitrary) way of determining the head counts at all the "positions" for a specific roster. Versatile players - guys who can play more than one role effectively - may save roster spots elsewhere, regardless of their positional designation.

Like Groundhog Day, the same threads arrive each year as new topics of Capricorn with the warming of the new football year. Life must be given to all even the buds that need more time to grow, it’s a rite of Spring.

 

[mgteich]

I’ve got an idea. We can trust Belichick and his ability to choose a QB3, WR5, OL9, etc based on how they’re looking in camp prior to the decision being made 5 months from now.

In the meantime, speculating about the roster helps to pass the time, but is a meaningless exercise.

Few trust Belichick's decisions are than I do. That certainly shouldn't be an issue.

When I see discussions of 6th WR's and 10th OL's, I think it useful to discuss roster constraints. Obviously, any of these things can be done. But the cost should be considers. And, of course, Bill will make the final decisions. and we can only guess with regard to what he will do.

For example, in the 2 particular positions cited, I think that we should be deciding between 4 and 5 wide receivers (the 4th WR average fewer than 2 catches a game), and between 8 and 9 OL's (with someone like Croston backing up both OT and OG)

 

[Hyped]

I don’t think too many are making that argument these days, post-2014. Slater should be considered a ST only player, like Grissom, King, Cardona, Ebner, Bolden, etc. Obviously, a couple/few of these guys can actually play a backup role, but when was the last time you saw King, Bolden, or Slater playing on either side of the ball in a meaningful game?

I still count Slater as a WR, Grissom as a DE, King as a DB, Cardona as a LS, Ebner as a S, and Bolden as a RB when doing my 53 man roster analysis. Them playing those positions even ONCE affect the decisions we make on the back end of the roster, IMO. Say...Ebner could play snaps at RB...do we even keep Bolden and do we get another safety for our group? Etc...etc... And again...not arguing this..it is just so.

 

[mgteich]

I recall when Vrabel could a a touchdown pass or two. I even remember Brady being the target of a pass. This does NOT the number of players carried at WR FOR BELICHICK.

For you, the fact that Slater is on the team affects the number of WR's that we keep. For me, this is simply poor analysis.

There are 3 STO's players on the roster: Slater, Ebner and King. There presences has exactly zero effect on the WR and S counts. BTW, I don't recall King EVER having a rep as a defensive back.

This analysis is curious. Perhaps if I list Slater as a safety, then we will need one fewer safety. After all, we already have Ebner and King.

While being on the roster as special teamers, Grissom and Bolden are indeed emergency players at their positions.

I see the problem is not differentiating between the 6 true STO players and the others.
====
BTW, how many safeties do you think that we would add if we replaced King and Ebner with players who have a couple of reps at LB in the past 5 seasons instead of the projected reps at CB?

I still count Slater as a WR, Grissom as a DE, King as a DB, Cardona as a LS, Ebner as a S, and Bolden as a RB when doing my 53 man roster analysis. Them playing those positions even ONCE affect the decisions we make on the back end of the roster, IMO. Say...Ebner could play snaps at RB...do we even keep Bolden and do we get another safety for our group? Etc...etc... And again...not arguing this..it is just so.

 

[Hyped]

I recall when Vrabel could a a touchdown pass or two. I even remember Brady being the target of a pass. This does NOT the number of players carried at WR FOR BELICHICK.

For you, the fact that Slater is on the team affects the number of WR's that we keep. For me, this is simply poor analysis.

There are 3 STO's players on the roster: Slater, Ebner and King. There presences has exactly zero effect on the WR and S counts. BTW, I don't recall King EVER having a rep as a defensive back.

This analysis is curious. Perhaps if I list Slater as a safety, then we will need one fewer safety. After all, we already have Ebner and King.

While being on the roster as special teamers, Grissom and Bolden are indeed emergency players at their positions.

I see the problem is not differentiating between the 6 true STO players and the others.
====
BTW, how many safeties do you think that we would add if we replaced King and Ebner with players who have a couple of reps at LB in the past 5 seasons instead of the projected reps at CB?

In Vrabel's case, I seem to remember there not being an hybrid FB/TE move type player on the roster at the time. Nonetheless, I listed him as a DE when doing roster analysis back in the day. IIRC, I think Seymour or some big OL-man lined up at FB for some goal line plays as well. Still for these guys...we count where they will play for a majority of the time.

With ST positions...maybe the team should just separately list Slater, King, Ebner, etc... as ST1, ST2, etc...

But I believe that when we decide we need a critical core ST player...the part time position said player plays at comes into play for other players at that position (e.g. a ST/S is better than a #5 safety).

For instance, when we signed King in 2015 from the PS after cutting him at the 53 man cut down...we released a CB.

 

[mgteich]

1) Has King EVER taken a rep as a DB.? If I had to give him a position, it would be LB.

2) Yes, STO players should be listed under Special Teams rather than any positions. Many here have done this for several years. In this vein, Slater, King and Ebner are special teams ONLY players, and should be listed as special teamers.

3) Yes, for other players who are on the squad because of the special teams skills, the player's secondary position is relevant. For example, this is true for Bolden, Patterson, Grissom, Grisby, Cy Jones and Richards.

In Vrabel's case, I seem to remember there not being an hybrid FB/TE move type player on the roster at the time. Nonetheless, I listed him as a DE when doing roster analysis back in the day. IIRC, I think Seymour or some big OL-man lined up at FB for some goal line plays as well. Still for these guys...we count where they will play for a majority of the time.

With ST positions...maybe the team should just separately list Slater, King, Ebner, etc... as ST1, ST2, etc...

But I believe that when we decide we need a critical core ST player...the part time position said player plays at comes into play for other players at that position (e.g. a ST/S is better than a #5 safety).

For instance, when we signed King in 2015 from the PS after cutting him at the 53 man cut down...we released a CB.

 

[maineman209]

1) Has King EVER taken a rep as a DB.? If I had to give him a position, it would be LB.

2) Yes, STO players should be listed under Special Teams rather than any positions. Many here have done this for several years. In this vein, Slater, King and Ebner are special teams ONLY players, and should be listed as special teamers.

3) Yes, for other players who are on the squad because of the special teams skills, the player's secondary position is relevant. For example, this is true for Bolden, Patterson, Grissom, Grisby, Cy Jones and Richards.

Apparently, King has yet to take an NFL snap from scrimmage at any position on either side of the ball.

On my roster tracking spreadsheets, I list Bolden as ST/(rb), Grissom as ST/(de), Grigsby as ST/(lb) ... he's only played 14 total D-snaps in his career - all of them in the Pats' 2017 regular season finale v. the Jets.

In 2016, I was listing Jon Jones as ST/(cb) since he played 64 D-snaps and 307 ST snaps. NOW, I have him listed as CB/st since, in 2017, he played nearly twice as many D-snaps as ST snaps.

Cy Jones is less clear. In 2016, as a rookie, he played 147 snaps on defense and only 51 on ST - all of those as a returner. I list him as CB/kr-pr.