Let's talk about current depth

[ay-yo]

It's fair to say we have questions about depth at rb.

Based strictly off the percentages it's also fair to expect 1 rookie rb will provide reasonable production.

While Faulk is getting older I see him either resigning or re-signing. If he resigns he could probably be re-signed mid season if we have a crisis at rb (due to injuries and rookies not playing well).

I'd say depth at OG / center is a bit more concerning.

 

[Joker]

I feel center needs UPGRADING in the near future...Koppen has a lot of miles on him and has taken a pounding the last few seasons.

 

[patfanken]

There are clearly many questions regarding the Pats quality of depth. It would be foolish not to think so. However it would be equally foolish not to think that there COULD be several answers to those questions on the current roster....before FA. Lets start on the Offense.

WR - I think that the Pats will only keep 5 WRs this season because of other factors (ie 3 qbs this season, 4 TEs, etc) Welker and Branch are established starters. Edelman Tate and Price are unproven guys who could very well prove to become every thing from great to gone. We don't know. Price is key. He has enormous physical talent, but comes from a college program that didn't help his progress. He couldn't get on the field last season, but who knows. He could very well be the answer as the #3 WR or he could be another Chad Jackson. If he is, then we have depth. If he isn't then we will have to bring in some FA WR. The wild card here is Hernandez, who will take significant number of snaps from the WR position, very much like the big WR everyone is calling for. If the Pats do end up signing a brand name WR, then one of the unproven guys is going to lose his job, because I am convinced there is only room for 5 "true" WRs

OT - Hard to figure without know how the Light situation will pan out. Assuming he's gone. An OT group of Solder, Volmer, LeVoire and Kazcur is as good as you get and better than most. Kazcur and LeVoire have been good enough to start. Volmer is a plus player, and Solder makes up for his lack of experience by being the most physically gifted guy in the group If Light is kept, it only gets better, even if keeping Light means losing Kazcur.

OG - I'd be much more worried about this position if Connolly hadn't proven to be so adequate last season. Whether he signs long term or not Mankins WILL be a Patriot in 2011. Some combination of Connolly, Cannon. Kazcur, Orenberger should be able to handle the RG position solidly. Kazcur's flexibility is a depth plus.

C - I'd love to see a more capable back up to Koppen emerge. I'm not thrilled thinking Orenberger is the only backup we have. Here is a position where I'd love to see an upgrade of Orenberger. A guy who could back up the C and play G as well In my mind the greatest need on offense to improve.;

QB - Hoyer has proven he can be adequate moving the team in his brief time in pre-season and late season. He's a good decision maker. Mallett might be a better QB prospect than a few of rookies who are going to have to take a lot of snaps this year. I don't expect him to see the field this year (like Brady before him), but he'll be just as ready to get on the field as guys like Ponder, Dalton, Locker, etc Guys who won't have the luxury to sit and learn. So in the unlikely circumstance that has Mallet on the field, at least we'll have a talented guy, just not an experienced one. If Brady goes down, playoffs could be a possibility, but the superbowl would be unlikely. If BOTH go down.....OUCH!

TE- Good depth here, especially if you consider Hernandez as a TE.

RB- I think we can only afford to keep 5 total BJGE, Woodhead, and the 2 rookies are locks. I think I'd rather keep a guy who could also play FB as my 5th guy over bringing Faulk back, (I'm thinking the kid who went to Navy), though given the TEs we have, they could provide the "FB" blocking we need. I think there will be plenty of FAs available here, if any of the rookies look like they aren't getting it fast enough, though RB IS one of those positions where rookies can have an immediate impact.

DL - Lots of Depth here. I don't see NT depth as an issue. Pryor, Deadrick, and Wright have all had starts at the position. That should be enough, especially when you consider you have one of the 3 best NTs in the league starting.

ILB - Another position of depth with Spikes, Mayo, Guyton and Fletcher coming back

OLB - like EVERYONE else in Patriot nation, I'd LOVE to see us add an impact pass rusher at OLB. HOWEVER since there has only been ONE OLB in the BB era who managed a double digit sack season, I'd much rather see a return to a defense that was among the top 10 in sacks, while having no one among the sack leaders. No question the Pats HAVE to create more pressure on QBs this season, but that's doesn't mean it can't get done as a team, rather than on an individual basis.

Secondary - More depth and more talent than anytime in the BB era. Even in the Law/Harrison era, while the top talent might have been better than this team. there wasn't nearly the depth. Plus those teams had the luxury of playing under more reasonable pass coverage rules.

I think this current team has a LOT of depth. The only question/questions remain as how far the 2nd and 3rd year guys have improved.....or not. If 2 out of 3 meet our expectations, then it could be a year to remember

 

[ausbacker]

I feel center needs UPGRADING in the near future...Koppen has a lot of miles on him and has taken a pounding the last few seasons.

We're in agreement. Are there any notable centers coming out of the draft or as available free agents in 2012?

 

[Deus Irae]

Hey if you think projecting depth but ignoring unproven players is a good way to spend your time, bully for you. Every single NFL team relies on lots of unproven players and every NFL coach and gm builds a team based on projections but whatever.

I didn't project the depth at running back. In fact, I specifically said that it couldn't be done:

There's so much in question here that I don't think the position can even be fairly evaluated right now.

Now that I know you're just trolling as well as stalking, I can comfortably put you on ignore. It's not as if I'll be missing any insight.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that we need improvement at C. I suspect that center will be a top priority going into the next offseason.

For now, Wendell is the backup as he has been for a couple of years. And, yes, he was the one who started at RG last year when Connolly was at LG. So, Wendell is OK for now. Obviously, this position is open for a free agent upgrade if one is available at the right price.

I don't think Ohrnberger was even on the 53 to start last year. He certainly wasn't ahead of Ohrnberger on the depth chart at center. I don't expect Ohrnberger to make the team this year either, unless Cannon is put on PUP or IR. Cannon is the upgrade for Ohrnberger.

.

C - I'd love to see a more capable back up to Koppen emerge. I'm not thrilled thinking Orenberger is the only backup we have. Here is a position where I'd love to see an upgrade of Orenberger. A guy who could back up the C and play G as well In my mind the greatest need on offense to improve.;

 

[Ring 6]

Depth is not an easy topic to assess.
Many of the depth players on a lot of teams are young players who's only certainty is they won't be the same, they will get better or worse.
There are also different aspects of depth.
Role players are 'depth' but they are critical each game for every team.
Backup depth can be critical or irrelevant depending upon injuires.
Wes Welkers backup was irrelevant for most of 2009 and critical once the playoffs started.
Last year, depth at DL, CB, RB turned out to be very important, but depth at OL, WR (netting out Moss and Branch) S were inconsquential.
The overall quality of a teams depth ultimately isnt as important as whether their injuries happen to strike in an area of strength or weakness, both in who must be replaced and who must replace them.

As far as the Pats depth currently (depth is always a big target in FA with BB so this will change)
OL- Imperfect, but compared to most teams, its pretty solid, particularly if Kaczur is healthy and here, giving us Kaczur, Levoir and Wendell as backups who have played decent amounts in the league, and Cannon as a promising rookie.
WR- Depends a lot on Price developing. Tate and Edelman haven't shown me they can take on a heavy role, but both are young and haven't had to (WRs production is often closely related to their opportunities). Role player depth is fine, backup depth is scary.
TE- No issues here
QB- Our depth is the best in the league if it is holding a clipboard, and the worst in the league if Brady is holding the clipboard. No matter what Hoyer would do, the dropoff would be devastating.
DL- A wealth of medicority behind a solid starting unit is good depth. Having a large number of capable, but uninspriing players as backups is better than most.
OLB- The starters have question marks, the depth even more.
ILB- No issues here
CB- Adding Bodden and Dowling to a unit that played much better as the season progressed helps the depth a lot. It seems we have a lot of guys who COULD be strong #3 and #4 corners, but none that we can be certain of.
S No issue here.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Can't wait to see the CB's out there this year

 

[Sciz]

We're in agreement. Are there any notable centers coming out of the draft or as available free agents in 2012?

Brewster 2012!

 

[Off The Grid]

Are there any notable centers coming out of the draft or as available free agents in 2012?

Mike Brewster, baby.

Mike Brewster Scouting Reports

Peter Konz is also exceptional...But I suspect it's about 100 to 1 against him coming out.

Peter Konz Scouting Reports

 

[ausbacker]

Brewster 2012!

Mike Brewster, baby.

Mike Brewster Scouting Reports

Peter Konz is also exceptional...But I suspect it's about 100 to 1 against him coming out.

Peter Konz Scouting Reports

Thanks for that guys. Brewster sounds like an exciting prospect and would fit BB's Goliath O-Line mould that he's moving toward. Might have to do a little more reading on Brewster and take notice of Buckeyes games when the opportunity presents on Aussie TV.

 

[BradyFTW!]

But it's simply not obvious that the Pats have "serious questions" at running back. They don't have proven NFL players but they do have players who are LIKELY to be reasonably good based on their college production.

Any position where your depth chart consists of a free agent, some rookies, danny woodhead, and some guys who are likely to retire/be cut is, by definition, a question mark.

 

[supafly]

I would nopt be surprised to see both Page and McGowan go, especially with the addition of Dowling.

I agree with your thoughts about Page and McGowan, now all we have to do is actually re-sign one of them.

All I really want is one or the other, but if I had my choice, I think I'd prefer Page.

It'd be a shame if they both went elsewhere this yr.

To be honest mg, I would be surprised to see BOTH Page and McGowan gone to FA this yr, and I think that we should at least keep one or the other.

As we all know, there are 3 safety big nickle situations, where the 4th S now becomes quite important should someone get nicked up, miss a game or two, etc.

There's also the specialty roles, where McGowan was being used somewhat in the 2009 season on 'moving' TE's more (good 1st half of the season, bad 2nd half). I believe that one of either Page/McGowan certainly makes us all feel a little bit better about the depth at S.

I hear what you're saying about the addition of Dowling, but I believe that Belichick even said that he will be playing CB this yr, at least until he's acclimated. That acclimation may not be like past yrs with rookies, due to the labor problems, so Dowling may have to play a sub-package dime role to get used to NFL speed, his assignments, the 'system,' etc, etc, etc.

I think that you'd have a better point if it were next yr, 2012 as far as Dowling playing safety, but at this point we have no idea about him whatsoever, besides the fact that he has potential, has had a lot of injuries, and projects to be an eventual player at the safety position. I do not see Dowling playing safety right off the bat, and I think BB has affirmed this thought, but obviously I could be wrong.

I just think that one of either Page/McGowan gives us that much needed depth, ST play, and specialty role options from a proven NFL player---as opposed to just 'hoping' that Dowling gets it right off the bat, and not only that, he gets it at a 'new' position right off the bat. I would not think that BB would be banking on that.

It's definitely a story line (albeit smaller one) as we (hopefully) head into camp soon.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

I've always thought Tanard Jackson would be an absolute monster for this team at FS -- aka what we hoped Meriweather would turn into. Jackson can lay some wood but is far better in coverage than Meriweather. Would love to see what he could do under Belichick.

Too bad the guy can't stay out of trouble. He was in the last year of his rookie deal in 2010, and I was hoping if he finally had his head on straight that he could be a good pickup via free agency. But since he got suspended and barely played, his contract was allegedly going to "roll over" into 2011 when he is eligible to re-instated in September.

If Tampa ever decided they felt it was time to move on and cut him, I'd kick the tires on him if he came at a reasonable price. Kid has a ton of talent, just needs some discipline/a kick in the ass.

 

[patchick]

I didn't project the depth at running back. In fact, I specifically said that it couldn't be done

Deus, RB is generally the #1 easiest position (outside of specialists) for rookies to have an impact. If we can't project the rookie RBs as having any depth value, then we presumably have to cross Solder, Dowling and Mallet off our depth charts too, right? That would send us back to the drawing board on a lot of the comments so far.

Plus it's almost as hard to project the impact of veteran FA signings. (Hands up if you knew Eric Moore was going to do more than Derrick Burgess!) Do we X them out, too?

IMO, having promising but totally untested rookies as depth (rather than projected starters) is a normal, healthy situation. I don't see any reason to place them in a black box and pretend we know nothing at all about them.

Take Ridley. We know he's a big, powerful runner with excellent balance and good ball control and some pass-blocking promise but no speed. Ergo we can cross him off as depth for Woodhead, but can expect to see him take a few of the tough-yards reps that BJGE might otherwise get. Can we feel confident in him? Nope, but we can say there's a promising prospect for that role, so it's not a priority target for the FA scramble.

 

[IllegalContact]

Any position where your depth chart consists of a free agent, some rookies, danny woodhead, and some guys who are likely to retire/be cut is, by definition, a question mark.

anytime your RB depth chart consists of:

26 year old 1000 yard rusher who does not fumble
26 year old 3rd down back with 1000 yards of total offense and a 5.6ypc
2nd round pick 3rd down back
3rd round pick who can pound the ball

you can consider yourself much deeper than having
25 year old who has done nothing
a 34 year old and 2 35 year olds as 'depth' (they all wound up injured)
which is what the pats started last season with.

this summer is the first time in a while where you can say that you have guys that can play who won't get hurt before the leaves turn

 

[Shelterdog]

Now that I know you're just trolling as well as stalking, I can comfortably put you on ignore. It's not as if I'll be missing any insight.

My position-that you can and must include rookies when you're trying to evaluate a team's depth-is (a) logical (b) the practice of every NFL team, (c) the practice of every NFL analyst and (d) right. Rejecting your argument that you just can't evaluate rookies as depth isn't trolling, it's just being smart. Now it's much harder to evaluate Ridley and Vereen than it is to evaluate BJGE and Woodhead, but you've still got to do it if you're trying to accurately predict how the team is going to do next year.

EDIT: And this "I didn't project depth at RB" argument you make is absurd. You said they had "serious questions" which is a projection.

 

[jmt57]

I feel center needs UPGRADING in the near future...Koppen has a lot of miles on him and has taken a pounding the last few seasons.

Agreed. It seems to me that when the Pats play a 3-4 defense the player Koppen is facing is bigger and stronger (3-4 NT vs 4-3 DT) and that's when he tends to struggle.

Not to hijack the thread and beat a dead horse, but I was disappointed and perplexed with the decision to waive Larsen during final cuts last year, considering they retained both Maneri and Kaczur. I'm guessing Belichick must have had serious doubts about Connolly at the time if he was holding out hope that Kaczur would be able to return from back surgery he had just a couple weeks prior. I know Larsen had a rough camp, but I thought with a year of coaching he'd be able to take over for Koppen probably in 2011, or at least by 2012. If the Pats can extend Mankins then center would be the final position they need to address next year in completing the turnover and rebuilding of the offensive line.

Back to the topic of this thread: if Koppen is injured then they could either go with Wendell, or move Connolly to center. In that case their RG could be Cannon if he is ready to go; if not a free agent like Ojinnaka or one of their current backups like Wendell, Ohrnberger or Austin. Looks to me like depth on the interior OL should be a bit of a concern.

 

[jmt57]

Thanks Ken, very nice analysis.

There are clearly many questions regarding the Pats quality of depth. It would be foolish not to think so. However it would be equally foolish not to think that there COULD be several answers to those questions on the current roster....before FA. Lets start on the Offense.

WR - I think that the Pats will only keep 5 WRs this season because of other factors (ie 3 qbs this season, 4 TEs, etc) Welker and Branch are established starters. Edelman Tate and Price are unproven guys who could very well prove to become every thing from great to gone. We don't know. Price is key. He has enormous physical talent, but comes from a college program that didn't help his progress. He couldn't get on the field last season, but who knows. He could very well be the answer as the #3 WR or he could be another Chad Jackson. If he is, then we have depth. If he isn't then we will have to bring in some FA WR. The wild card here is Hernandez, who will take significant number of snaps from the WR position, very much like the big WR everyone is calling for. If the Pats do end up signing a brand name WR, then one of the unproven guys is going to lose his job, because I am convinced there is only room for 5 "true" WRs

Regarding depth, what happens if Deion Branch is out for an extended period of time? You still have Welker in the slot, but now your outside guys are a combination of Tate, Price and Edelman (who is more suited to be in the slot); we'd really be counting on them to step it up. I suppose we might see more 2 (or 3) TE sets, 2 RB sets, and fewer 3 or 4 WR sets, but does the offense - even with Brady at QB - become too predictable? As far as adding a veteran FA WR, remember BB did not do so after cutting Joey Galloway; he may be more inclined to do the same thing again with the idea that an unproven player that has been in the system for a while has a better chance at being productive than a veteran free agent.

OT - Hard to figure without know how the Light situation will pan out. Assuming he's gone. An OT group of Solder, Volmer, LeVoire and Kazcur is as good as you get and better than most. Kazcur and LeVoire have been good enough to start. Volmer is a plus player, and Solder makes up for his lack of experience by being the most physically gifted guy in the group If Light is kept, it only gets better, even if keeping Light means losing Kazcur.

OG - I'd be much more worried about this position if Connolly hadn't proven to be so adequate last season. Whether he signs long term or not Mankins WILL be a Patriot in 2011. Some combination of Connolly, Cannon. Kazcur, Orenberger should be able to handle the RG position solidly. Kazcur's flexibility is a depth plus.

I just wonder how much we can and should count on Kaczur. Aside from the question of his health, he's due to make $3.4 million this year, and count $4.4 million against the cap. Supposedly he was asked to take a pay cut and refused; if so, what's next? If the Pats cut him depth is greatly weakened at both OT and OG; retain him and they may lose some flexibility in signing other players.

Maybe it will become an either/or situation with Light and Kaczur: if Light is re-signed they cut Kaczur; but if Light leaves then they keep Kaczur, even if they have to pay him that much?


Edit: I just saw your comment in the http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...void-domino-effect-ol-page13.html#post2588003 thread - it's almost as if you answered these questions there while I was writing this.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus, RB is generally the #1 easiest position (outside of specialists) for rookies to have an impact. If we can't project the rookie RBs as having any depth value, then we presumably have to cross Solder, Dowling and Mallet off our depth charts too, right? That would send us back to the drawing board on a lot of the comments so far.

How would Mallet have any real impact if you took him out of the mix, other than in the numbers game? He's the team's #3 QB, a/k/a the developmental QB. The QB depth is certainly 'better' than it has been, simply because there's an extra body there. Whether the talent of that depth has improved is yet to be known.

Dowling's position is actually a perfect example of why you don't count rookies. Wheatley, Wilhite, Butler..... they were all definite starters of the future, and Wheatley and Butler were going to be great. Well, Wheatley's gone, and Wilhite could well be fighting with Butler and Arrington just to stay on the team.

As for Solder, I conceded the possibility of considering him legitimate depth, given the team's track record with first round picks. Once you show me another round where every player the Patriots have taken was able to be a multi-year starter, we can talk about adding that round to the exception list as well.

Plus it's almost as hard to project the impact of veteran FA signings. (Hands up if you knew Eric Moore was going to do more than Derrick Burgess!) Do we X them out, too?

There's one veteran FA signing, as far as I recall at the moment, and that's Stroud. He's got an NFL track record. If you feel a need to X him out because you don't feel you can evaluate him within the Patriots system, you should do so. Personally, I view him as a player in decline, who's in the mix for both the D-line's final starting job and the cut list.

IMO, having promising but totally untested rookies as depth (rather than projected starters) is a normal, healthy situation. I don't see any reason to place them in a black box and pretend we know nothing at all about them.

They've shown nothing in the NFL, one way or another. It's a pretty obvious reason. When you're talking about them as depth, it's a simple thing: "The team also has a rookie at the position, and he'll have a chance to make the team. If he's good enough to make it over (fill in the name of a bottom of roster player), that'll probably mean there was at least a little bit of an upgrade." In the case of the rookie RBs, though, they've currently got no competition for depth positions, so there's not even the possibility of comparison.

Take Ridley. We know he's a big, powerful runner with excellent balance and good ball control and some pass-blocking promise but no speed. Ergo we can cross him off as depth for Woodhead, but can expect to see him take a few of the tough-yards reps that BJGE might otherwise get. Can we feel confident in him? Nope, but we can say there's a promising prospect for that role, so it's not a priority target for the FA scramble.

This thread was supposed to be about "Current depth" for the purposes of a real football discussion. If you don't know what a player can do in the NFL, you can't really speak for that player. It's a common sense thing.