Why does everyone assume that Faulk makes the team?

[Oswlek]

I can't resist - how many of the folks mocking the stater of this thread also were insisting right after the season that there was no way Dillon would be cut. There were an awful lot of posters who said that would never happen either.

I specifically said that Dillon would be cut.

But I still think you are off base with the Faulk thing. You do realize that Faulk blocks on pass plays occasionally, right? If Faulk was targeted every single time he walked onto the field, those plays would be largely unsuccessful, no?

Faulk is NE's primary back on 3rd and 3+. I would wager that he was on the field for at least 80% of the plays that NE was in 3rd and 3+, and probably at least 40% of the plays that were 2nd and 15+. That is a hell of a lot more than 4 per game.

Also, Faulk on ran the ball 25 times because there were hardly enough carries to give Dillon and Maroney. The only reason to give Faulk any carries was to surprise teams with a draw on passing downs. In the past, he has proven that he can still be a capable change of pace guy with 5-8 carries per game. (and by "past" I mean the 2006 NYJ playoff game - 5 carries for 25 yards after an initial 2 yard loss)

The only reason that anyone might believe that Faulk is in trouble is Morris' signing. I don't agree with that, however. I see that as NE wanting to be have a RB that can back up Faulk on 3rd down in case of injury. That way they won't be forced to play Heath Evans as the third down back.

 

[DaBruinz]

Sir, you just about make my point about the legend of Faulk being greater than the fact. I get the "idea" from Faulk's stats. Quick, guess how many times Faulk carried the ball this year - 80? 100? Try 25. Add 43 receptions (a very respectable total for a RB) and bingo, you get about four touches per game not counting punts - as I put forth in my original response (on page 6 i believe, please take a second and go back and read it). Maroney's presence obviously cut into Faulk's carries and one could argue that with Dillon gone that Faulk will go back up to the 50ish carries he had in '04 and '05, when he was essentially Dillon's backup and the 3rd down back. But apparently BB doesn't feel comfortable depending on Faulk to backup Maroney, he forked out several million for Morris to do that. And BB was auditioning punt returners late last year as well.

I didn't even bring fumbles into my assessment of the logic of cutting Faulk, I didn't really need it.

As for SamBam's weary post about how this thread is just "daydreaming," I ask, exactly what do you think this whole site is based upon? I also prefer informed responses but you sound like you see patsfans.com as a training ground for future GM's. Only in your daydreams!

When you actually do the math and include PUNT RETURNS, Faulk (116/16) you get over 7 touches per game. And that is just the times he touches the ball. You forget the times when he's in there as a pass protector for Brady on 3rd downs. That's gotta be good for another 5-6 plays a game at the very minimum.

 

[MDPATSFAN]

My stats were expressed in fumbles per touch - did you actually read the file I attached? Please show me where my data is "incomplete/incorrect". All you do is come here and make accusations - you don't add any information yourself. And I fail to see how the fact that this was discussed here before (what wasn't?) is relevant.

I guess your problem is I'm not not buying your spreadsheet as gospel when it clearly omits nearly 20 percent of Faulk's 2006 touches that occurred during the playoffs.

After the Denver game in 2005, I thought BB was certifiably insane for continuing to give Faulk the ball and expressed on this board that he should be gone. Even I can see that he improved his ball security last season.... As such his value to the team goes way up.

If we are going to discuss Faulk's value to the Patriots we need to do so with correct information. Here's his production during the 06 playoffs for all who are interested:

Att Yds Y/A Lng TD Rec Yds Y/R Lng TD Fum FumL

Total 16 75 4.7 9 0 4 23 5.8 7 1 0 0

For comparision, Here's our number one draft pick's playoff production:

Att Yds Y/A Lng TD Rec Yds Y/R Lng TD Fum FumL

Total 31 87 2.8 9 0 1 6 6.0 6 0 1 0


To be fair to Maroney he had good production in the return game. Additionally, Dillion had an off year last season IRT ball security...3 fumbles in 214 touches...nearly the same fumble rate as Faulk!

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

I was wondering when the annual thread about whether Faulk would be on the team or not would hit the forum.....

LOL. Its a tradition like the 4th of July -- it comes every year.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

Bottomline is Faulk is an X-factor in the passing game. He stays.

 

[PromisedLand]

I guess your problem is I'm not not buying your spreadsheet as gospel when it clearly omits nearly 20 percent of Faulk's 2006 touches that occurred during the playoffs.

After the Denver game in 2005, I thought BB was certifiably insane for continuing to give Faulk the ball and expressed on this board that he should be gone. Even I can see that he improved his ball security last season.... As such his value to the team goes way up.

If we are going to discuss Faulk's value to the Patriots we need to do so with correct information. Here's his production during the 06 playoffs for all who are interested:

Att Yds Y/A Lng TD Rec Yds Y/R Lng TD Fum FumL

Total 16 75 4.7 9 0 4 23 5.8 7 1 0 0

For comparision, Here's our number one draft pick's playoff production:

Att Yds Y/A Lng TD Rec Yds Y/R Lng TD Fum FumL

Total 31 87 2.8 9 0 1 6 6.0 6 0 1 0


To be fair to Maroney he had good production in the return game. Additionally, Dillion had an off year last season IRT ball security...3 fumbles in 214 touches...nearly the same fumble rate as Faulk!

"My problem", as you put it, is that you are cherry-picking the stats that make your case, and with a very small sample size at that. I looked at his entire career, regular season, without any bias as to including or excluding certain games - a total of 1163 touches. This is a statistically significant sample size.

I already told you, if you are interested in seeing the data including playoffs, go ahead and compile it. I'd be interested to see it, but I suspect that if you included ALL his touches including ALL regular season and ALL playoffs you would find substantially the same results as I got.

Instead, you first come here and tell me what else I should do, when if you are interested in seeing a different data set you could contribute that yourself, and you then trash my work with foolish statements such as "you fumbled by using incomplete/incorrect data. Additionally, the ball security stat is normally expressed in fumbles per touch." (post #75), when in fact it was complete, compiled from nfl.com, and clearly attributed as such, and in fact fumbles per touch is exactly the statistic I used (post #25). Then you post more cherry-picked data based on a ridiculously small sample set (post #55) and then even after I tell you why that is silly (post #57) now you're back with more cherry-picked data.

I guess you just don't get it.

 

[dhamz]

Sir, you just about make my point about the legend of Faulk being greater than the fact. I get the "idea" from Faulk's stats. Quick, guess how many times Faulk carried the ball this year - 80? 100? Try 25. Add 43 receptions (a very respectable total for a RB) and bingo, you get about four touches per game not counting punts - as I put forth in my original response (on page 6 i believe, please take a second and go back and read it).

Sir, you obviously don't understand the difference between touches per game and plays per game since you stated he was in for 4 plays a game on offense.

You also might want to rethink that argument about 4 touches a game not being a lot in the Pats offense since only 2 other guys on the team got that more touches than Faulk in 2006.

 

[MDPATSFAN]

"My problem", as you put it, is that you are cherry-picking the stats that make your case, and with a very small sample size at that. I looked at his entire career, regular season, without any bias as to including or excluding certain games - a total of 1163 touches. This is a statistically significant sample size.

I already told you, if you are interested in seeing the data including playoffs, go ahead and compile it. I'd be interested to see it, but I suspect that if you included ALL his touches including ALL regular season and ALL playoffs you would find substantially the same results as I got.

Instead, you first come here and tell me what else I should do, when if you are interested in seeing a different data set you could contribute that yourself, and you then trash my work with foolish statements such as "you fumbled by using incomplete/incorrect data. Additionally, the ball security stat is normally expressed in fumbles per touch." (post #75), when in fact it was complete, compiled from nfl.com, and clearly attributed as such, and in fact fumbles per touch is exactly the statistic I used (post #25). Then you post more cherry-picked data based on a ridiculously small sample set (post #55) and then even after I tell you why that is silly (post #57) now you're back with more cherry-picked data.

I guess you just don't get it.

Wow...What is your agenda? You seemed to be emotionally attached to your spread sheet which didn't include the playoffs.

My point is that in 2006 he worked hard in camp and his ball security improved. It was the same as Dillion's if you include all 19 games of the 2006 season.

Dillion 3 fumbles in 214 touches= 1 fumble every 71.3 touches

Faulk 2 fumbles in 141 touches= 1 fumble every 70.5 touches

Now, I'm through with you...You lose.

 

[Amnorix]

I can't resist - how many of the folks mocking the stater of this thread also were insisting right after the season that there was no way Dillon would be cut. There were an awful lot of posters who said that would never happen either.

Not if they understood Dillon's cap number, Maroney's emergence, and saw Dillon's loss of more than 1 step.

I told my wife (a big Dillon fan -- loved how he turned his reputation around while here) towards the tail end of the season that there was a solid chance he'd either have a renegotiate his contract or he just wouldn't be back next year. She asked why, I said cap-reasons, and she pitched a brief fit about how hard it is to root for this sport when the axe is constantly falling on your favorite players, etc.

 

[Amnorix]

On the touches per game issue -- you guys know that even an elite WR rarely has even 10 touches per game. That'd be 160 catches in a full NFL season...

Not counting the Center and QB, only the starting RB will have more than, say, 15 touches per game. 25+ touches is reserved for elite RBs.

And your simple analysis of touches per game ignores a VERY CRITICAL fact -- the fact that the Patriots and Belichick see the game not in terms of X plays per game, or Y touches per game, but as facing and winning the matches in a series of situations, some of which are somewhat more critical than others. This is what BB means when he talks, ENDLESSLY of situational footbal.

What is one of the MOST KEY situations that he talks about? Third down conversions, both on offense and defense.

What down does Faulk typically play on? Right, third down, where the yardage is medium or long.

So in what BB himself would often refer to as KEY OFFENSIVE SITUATIONS, Faulk is the guy at RB, because he is an effective blocker, runs AWESOME patterns ("he's like a WR out there", Belichick has said) and has TERRIFIC hands.

 

[Oswlek]

On the touches per game issue -- you guys know that even an elite WR rarely has even 10 touches per game. That'd be 160 catches in a full NFL season...

Not counting the Center and QB, only the starting RB will have more than, say, 15 touches per game. 25+ touches is reserved for elite RBs.

And your simple analysis of touches per game ignores a VERY CRITICAL fact -- the fact that the Patriots and Belichick see the game not in terms of X plays per game, or Y touches per game, but as facing and winning the matches in a series of situations, some of which are somewhat more critical than others. This is what BB means when he talks, ENDLESSLY of situational footbal.

What is one of the MOST KEY situations that he talks about? Third down conversions, both on offense and defense.

What down does Faulk typically play on? Right, third down, where the yardage is medium or long.

So in what BB himself would often refer to as KEY OFFENSIVE SITUATIONS, Faulk is the guy at RB, because he is an effective blocker, runs AWESOME patterns ("he's like a WR out there", Belichick has said) and has TERRIFIC hands.

Very nice post.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Well, I invited everyone to read my first post in the thread before responding - if several of the last few posters had, they would have noted how I point out in detail Faulk's worth beyond the simple touches per game factor. I had not wanted to repost the same thing but I guess I should have and been spared the condescending wrath of the Patsfans' intelligensia.

In the name of self-defense and clear discussion, here it is again for those who didn't see it on page 6 -

Geezum, the knee jerk response is as if Faulk was Brady. Faulk has had his moments for certain, but I think he might be bigger in legend than in fact.

Not including punts and KO's, last year he averaged just over 4 touches per game, hardly an offensive juggernaut. Faulk averaged 5 touches per game the previous two years. Faulk was the primary punt return man this year with 31, but last year he had zero. In fact, in nine years he's only had three years with more than 10 punt returns. BB was clearly experimenting with other returners by season's end - maybe because Faulk has never run back a punt for a TD.

Faulk turns 31 in June, entering his tenth season, a very long career for a RB. His cap hit next year is $3.2mil, pretty stiff number for an aging RB who gets on the field for only 4 offensive plays a game. (Cutting him costs just over $1mil.)

To me the strongest argument Faulk will make the team is that he is very adept at picking up the blitz - a skill BB has noted takes RB's some time to refine. Faulk's blocks on passing plays don't show up on the stat sheet but they are quite valuable and it's unlikely a rookie like Booker could quickly attain Faulk's level of proficiency. Now, if it turns out Morris is good at picking up the blitz and he plays well in camp - there would seem to be an awful lot of money tied up at reserve RB when you consider Morris and Faulk combined equal over $5mil themselves.

Trade or cut an over 31 Faulk, save $2mil on the cap, let Morris take Faulk's role for now and draft a rookie to learn the skills of blitz pick up and third down receiving and to get that position younger on the team. Well, that's hardly some kind dumb, stupid, ridiculous, or foolish, etc., proposotion to float. It's got some merit in fact and theory - So keep your shirts on people!

The closing paragraph sums it up. The point is - Faulk may not create enough "situational" advantages to be worth the money any longer versus starting anew. It's not like that day isn't coming...

One more thing - don't minimize the fact Faulk has been returning punts for 9 years and has never run one back for a TD. If you mean to create "situations" for the opponent to have difficulty dealing with then finding someone who can take it to the house would seem to be a priority.

 

[Oswlek]

Trade or cut an over 31 Faulk, save $2mil on the cap, let Morris take Faulk's role for now and draft a rookie to learn the skills of blitz pick up and third down receiving and to get that position younger on the team. Well, that's hardly some kind dumb, stupid, ridiculous, or foolish, etc., proposotion to float. It's got some merit in fact and theory - So keep your shirts on people![/COLOR]

The closing paragraph sums it up. The point is - Faulk may not create enough "situational" advantages to be worth the money any longer versus starting anew. It's not like that day isn't coming...

So, you want to take on two completely new bodies, one of which being a rookie, at a position that we have clear evidence of its importance (AFCCG vs. Indy) to save $2mm?

Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. Isn't it more reasonable to think that Morris was signed because he can back up Maroney's primary carrier skills as well as Faulk's 3rd down skills? I see no reason why a draft pick can't be brought in *and* Faulk stay around.

 

[DESERTPAT]

So far, I've seen a lot of possible rosters, and they all show how tight roster spots will be. I've been keeping Excel spreadsheets every year since 2002 (with playres color coded as green-locks, blue-surprised if they don'tmake the team, and yellow-surprised if they do) and this year will be the toughest cuts ever. Lots of greens and more blues than 53

On my roster, Faulk isn't there, but I've seen that everyone else considers him a lock. I know BB really likes his work ethic and coachability, but I also know he favors cutting players a year too early rather than ayear too late.

At what point do we have enough pass catchers out of the back field to put Faulk's job in jeopardy? At what point, when push comes to shove, do you keep younger talent and jettison the old?

In Faulk's case, it is 2007, at least for me. Not to say he can't play, just that if Mills shows good stuff in pre-season games, and with Evans and Morris, I'd rather cut Faulk and use the roster spot elsewhere.

I don't think Faulk makes the 2007 team.

You take yourself far to seriously my friend. Im surprised you got so many responses to this boneheaded thread.

 

[SamBam39]

I gotta believe BB will have no reason to get rid of Faulk at this point.
Even though has has fumbled at some of the worst times, he's also been a very very valued contributer and has been very good value for the cost. At this point I gotta believe he'll be staying.

 

[PromisedLand]

Now, I'm through with you...You lose.

well you sure told ME!

 

[LA Pats Fan]

You are Crazy

Until you can identify a player that can fulfill Faulks role as the 3rd down back how can you cut him?

Is Patrick Pass on your roster?

To be fair Faulk is not an automatic for cutting, but I haven't seen anyone fill his role.

Are you saying Sammy Morris is that guy???