Will BenJarvus Green-Ellis Make the 53?

[stcjones]

Yes because they will definitely not have 5 RB's by the end of the year. Someone will definitely go to PUP or IR at some point.

I've been saying you have to balance age/wisdom with youth/energy. That RB without BJGE has three players over 30 who are injury-prone, leaving only Fred Astaire as the young RB, and even then, he's had his share of injuries.

ahhhh.......a person with long term vision!!!! good realistic points.......Morris and Taylor have already been dinged up a bit in preseason/camp......ALL 3 (Maroney as well) have been injury prone lately. Need to have someone around that knows the system and can step right in.....and is a decent RB......BJGE fits the bill.....

 

[mgteich]

Perhaps it is worth having a 5th RB in case two running backs are injured. Of course, we would still have enough, but I suppose it is possible for three of the four to be injured.

If Belichick believed that it were worth a roster spot for insurance against two or three of the four practicing running backs to be injured at the same time, then we should have better competition in camp for this roster spot. Believe it or not, there will be better players that Green-Ellis available in the next week. And no, they wouldn't know all the schemes immediately. But then, they wouldn't have to. Such a running back wouldn't be used as a running back until two of the four primary backs were injured, and perhaps not even then.

Personally, I am fine with any two of our for running backs being available. I wouldn't even consider using Green-Ellis instead of just using the two running backs.

For me, we are fine at running back if one or even if two of our running backs were injured. I certainly can't say the same for other positions like ILB.

ahhhh.......a person with long term vision!!!! good realistic points.......Morris and Taylor have already been dinged up a bit in preseason/camp......ALL 3 (Maroney as well) have been injury prone lately. Need to have someone around that knows the system and can step right in.....and is a decent RB......BJGE fits the bill.....

 

[DaBruinz]

The part where you remember how many of his carries were in short yardage situations (e.g. see how many touchdowns he has).

He had 4 TDs.. WOW. Whoop dee dooo... That is going to just drag down his YPC.. NOT...

If BJGE was so great, why did the Pats go with Jordan over him at the end of the season?

BTW, BJGE did lousy against the Rams.. Was Mediocre against Indy.. And down right horrible against Miami and Pittsburgh..

People complain about Maroney's running against good run defenses, yet you guys want to go with BJGE... What a great idea.

 

[BradyFTW!]

ahhhh.......a person with long term vision!!!! good realistic points.......Morris and Taylor have already been dinged up a bit in preseason/camp......ALL 3 (Maroney as well) have been injury prone lately. Need to have someone around that knows the system and can step right in.....and is a decent RB......BJGE fits the bill.....

Long-term vision at RB? RB, perhaps more than any other position, pretty much mandates that you not have long-term vision, both because of the short careers at the position and because it's comparably easy to plug a new RB in, relative to other positions. I don't care which RB can help us out the most 3 years from now- the roster should reflect this year and maybe next year. Everything after that is a bridge that we can cross when we come to it.

BJGE had one highly effective game against a historically bad defense and one pretty good game against a bad defense, plus a few JAG performances, and you guys suddenly think we absolutely have to carry 5 RBs to hold on to him? Damn, easy crowd to impress. 1) We won't lose all of our running backs every year; and 2) even if we do, running backs are such that you can always just bring one in off the street and usually you can get by for a game here or there. Case in point: BJGE. The guy is a textbook JAG, and the Pats could easily sign someone as talented as him tomorrow if they needed to. As long as Morris makes it onto the roster (doesn't get IRed), there's just no reason to waste a spot on him. And I like the guy.

 

[Mike the Brit]

He had 4 TDs.. WOW. Whoop dee dooo... That is going to just drag down his YPC.. NOT...

If BJGE was so great, why did the Pats go with Jordan over him at the end of the season?

BTW, BJGE did lousy against the Rams.. Was Mediocre against Indy.. And down right horrible against Miami and Pittsburgh..

People complain about Maroney's running against good run defenses, yet you guys want to go with BJGE... What a great idea.

Fortunately, my ego isn't so fragile that I can't take being sneered at -- but I have to say it gets to me that you should write 'whoop de doo: he had 4 TDs' in that patronising and sarcastic tone and make such a simple error of fact. I don't pretend to have your database of football knowledge but BJ G-E had 5 touchdowns. I assume that even you must have had to look it up. What is the problem in getting that right?

And, if you think about the matter objectively for two seconds, you can also see that it isn't just the touchdowns that drag down the YPC average, of course, it's being used on third and two, fourth and one, in mid-field that kind of thing ...

You write: "People [I assume that is supposed to include me] complain about Maroney's running against good run defenses, yet you guys [yes, it is meant to be me!] want to go with BJGE... "

But I didn't write A SINGLE THING about Maroney and it is perfectly consistent to want to retain both Maroney and Green-Ellis.

As it happens, I voted that Green-Ellis will make the team. It's just a hunch I have and I may well be wrong. I also think that he should make the team because (1) from watching him, I think that he is intrinsically a good back (2) he runs differently from the other backs (with the possible exception of Sammy Morris) and (3) I think that it would be good to have a younger running back with experience next season (I could see all of Faulk, Morris and Taylor ending this year).

So do me a favour (and yourself too, for that matter) and tone it down, please. It's nearly football season, we have a great team to follow and this message-board is meant to be FUN. Sharing your knowledge and opinions contributes to that, but being hyper-aggressive, inaccurate and beside the point in disagreeing with other posters doesn't.

 

[Lampshade]

Long-term vision at RB? RB, perhaps more than any other position, pretty much mandates that you not have long-term vision, both because of the short careers at the position and because it's comparably easy to plug a new RB in, relative to other positions. I don't care which RB can help us out the most 3 years from now- the roster should reflect this year and maybe next year. Everything after that is a bridge that we can cross when we come to it.

BJGE had one highly effective game against a historically bad defense and one pretty good game against a bad defense, plus a few JAG performances, and you guys suddenly think we absolutely have to carry 5 RBs to hold on to him? Damn, easy crowd to impress. 1) We won't lose all of our running backs every year; and 2) even if we do, running backs are such that you can always just bring one in off the street and usually you can get by for a game here or there. Case in point: BJGE. The guy is a textbook JAG, and the Pats could easily sign someone as talented as him tomorrow if they needed to. As long as Morris makes it onto the roster (doesn't get IRed), there's just no reason to waste a spot on him. And I like the guy.

It's a little harsh to be quite so dismissive of his talent, imo.

It's not as though Green-Ellis is a guy who has been from team to team, being given chances, and not making the most of them; last year was his first year as a pro. For an undrafted rookie free-agent to make it onto the roster, and be productive when needed (5 TDs, and a 100 yard game) shouldn't be so easily sniffed at.

As you point out, RB is a short-career position, so long-term could mean Green-Ellis providing cheap production next year, or the year after.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, Green-Ellis might provide cheap production next year or the year after or he might not. What in this analysis causes you to think that we should have him on this year's roster?

As you point out, RB is a short-career position, so long-term could mean Green-Ellis providing cheap production next year, or the year after.

 

[Lampshade]

Yes, Green-Ellis might provide cheap production next year or the year after or he might not. What in this analysis causes you to think that we should have him on this year's roster?

That he won't be able to provide cheap production next year, or the year after, if he's on another team's roster.

Regardless, I wasn't making the argument that he should be on the roster - as I said above, I've yet to have him on any of my 53 man projections - however, the argument that he provides no value for this year (in addition to next year, and the following year), has yet to be proven, imo.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's a little harsh to be quite so dismissive of his talent, imo.

It's not as though Green-Ellis is a guy who has been from team to team, being given chances, and not making the most of them; last year was his first year as a pro. For an undrafted rookie free-agent to make it onto the roster, and be productive when needed (5 TDs, and a 100 yard game) shouldn't be so easily sniffed at.

As you point out, RB is a short-career position, so long-term could mean Green-Ellis providing cheap production next year, or the year after.

He produced marginally, with one good game against one of the worst defenses in recent NFL history. Also, his career arc isn't that unusual at all. The only thing unusual about it is that the RB position was so ravaged by injuries last year. He was undrafted, got signed to our practice squad, got a shot due to a ton of injuries, and produced fairly well against some terrible defenses. I'm glad that he produced, but nothing that he did was extraordinary.

I'm not saying that he's a bad player, I'm just saying that he's easily replaceable--call it JAG, or replacement-level, or whatever you want. You hold roster spots for guys whose production you couldn't largely replace by grabbing a guy off the street. When you're evaluating talent, you can't evaluate it in a vacuum: you have to look at what you can get from a guy relative to what you can get from the readily-available alternative (this is the whole philosophy behind VORP statistics). In BJGE's case, what he offers is, at best, slightly above replacement-level.

 

[patsfan13]

I voted for him making the 53, 3 of out 4 main RB's are on the wrong side of 30. The other has been injury prone. Excluding BJGE we have the oldest group of RB's in the league.

THis is only his second year we will see how he has progressed in the eyes of BB, he can also play ST this give him the type of versatility you want to see from a player in the 40-53 group on the roster.

 

[Lampshade]

He produced marginally, with one good game against one of the worst defenses in recent NFL history. Also, his career arc isn't that unusual at all. The only thing unusual about it is that the RB position was so ravaged by injuries last year. He was undrafted, got signed to our practice squad, got a shot due to a ton of injuries, and produced fairly well against some terrible defenses. I'm glad that he produced, but nothing that he did was extraordinary.

I'm not saying that he's a bad player, I'm just saying that he's easily replaceable--call it JAG, or replacement-level, or whatever you want. You hold roster spots for guys whose production you couldn't largely replace by grabbing a guy off the street. When you're evaluating talent, you can't evaluate it in a vacuum: you have to look at what you can get from a guy relative to what you can get from the readily-available alternative (this is the whole philosophy behind VORP statistics). In BJGE's case, what he offers is, at best, slightly above replacement-level.

What he offered LAST year would qualify as JAG/replacement level production.

IF his predicted production going forward is that of replacement level, then yes, by all means, release him now, but I'm not quite so convinced that's his upside. Time will tell I guess.

 

[patsox23]

Not only are you carrying 5 RB's for the first time so that Green-Ellis can substitute for any of the four, you have Green-Ellis as the heir apparent to Faulk? Faulk was on of our top receivers.

He has a little bit of wiggle, decent hands, and no, I'm not saying he IS the heir apparent, just that, as one of the several aspects of his value, he could be eventually. This isn't exactly controversial, by the way.

As for the "can substitute for any of the four," YES, what's so wild about that? I'm not saying he's BETTER, he's not. He's a little bit more than a JAG, but he's young, has experience in the system and, in this scenario, would be backing up three RBs who have major injury histories. Does anyone seriously consider this in any way "outside the box?"

 

[patsox23]

So do me a favour (and yourself too, for that matter) and tone it down, please. It's nearly football season, we have a great team to follow and this message-board is meant to be FUN. Sharing your knowledge and opinions contributes to that, but being hyper-aggressive, inaccurate and beside the point in disagreeing with other posters doesn't.

Here, here! Down with douchebaggery, especially this close to the season!

 

[BradyFTW!]

What he offered LAST year would qualify as JAG/replacement level production.

IF his predicted production going forward is that of replacement level, then yes, by all means, release him now, but I'm not quite so convinced that's his upside. Time will tell I guess.

Fair enough- in that case I think we're pretty much on the same page for his past production, and just differ on how much he has to offer going forward.

 

[mgteich]

Most agree with you and expect Green-Ellis to be on the team. You tell me. Is it out of the box to keep more running backs than we have ever kept so that we can activate three running backs if there are two running backs injured at the same time? After all, all we need for the game is two healthy running backs.

Let me be more clear. We would not need Green-Ellis even if we knew that every one of the four RB's would be out at least 2 games with injuries, and that for at least two games there would only be two running backs available because of injuries to two running backs.

He has a little bit of wiggle, decent hands, and no, I'm not saying he IS the heir apparent, just that, as one of the several aspects of his value, he could eventually. This isn't exactly controversial, by the way.

As for the "can substitute for any of the four," YES, what's so wild about that? I'm not saying he's BETTER, he's not. He's a little bit more than a JAG, but he's young, has experience in the system and, in this scenario, would be backing up three RBs who have major injury histories. Does anyone seriously consider this in any way "outside the box?"

 

[BradyFTW!]

He has a little bit of wiggle, decent hands, and no, I'm not saying he IS the heir apparent, just that, as one of the several aspects of his value, he could be eventually. This isn't exactly controversial, by the way.

As for the "can substitute for any of the four," YES, what's so wild about that? I'm not saying he's BETTER, he's not. He's a little bit more than a JAG, but he's young, has experience in the system and, in this scenario, would be backing up three RBs who have major injury histories. Does anyone seriously consider this in any way "outside the box?"

Depends on who doesn't get a roster spot because of him. It's definitely better to have him than not to have him, in a vacuum, but personnel decisions aren't made in a vacuum. He does offer what you say he offers, but IMO there are at least 53 guys who fill more pressing needs for the team, and are harder to replace if they don't make the roster.

 

[patsox23]

Depends on who doesn't get a roster spot because of him. It's definitely better to have him than not to have him, in a vacuum, but personnel decisions aren't made in a vacuum. He does offer what you say he offers, but IMO there are at least 53 guys who fill more pressing needs for the team, and are harder to replace if they don't make the roster.

A fair point, but I was just responding to the direct question of the guy asking. I certainly could be wrong, but I don't believe so.

 

[Lampshade]

Most agree with you and expect Green-Ellis to be on the team. You tell me. Is it out of the box to keep more running backs than we have ever kept so that we can activate three running backs if there are two running backs injured at the same time? After all, all we need for the game is two healthy running backs.

Whenever possible, four RBs were on the game day active list last year. Depending on what happens with Evans position (both on ST, and with the two RB set we saw last week) it is certainly possible that four will again be active this year.

Five RBs, including Heath Evans, were carried last year: Faulk, Evans, Green-Ellis, Jordan, Morris.

 

[BradyFTW!]

A fair point, but I was just responding to the direct question of the guy asking. I certainly could be wrong, but I don't believe so.

Definitely, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're right, and it looks like you're in the majority on this one.

A question for the people who have BJGE making it: who do you have as 54? (the best guy who gets cut)

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
................................ no.