Let's talk about current depth

[Deus Irae]

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

You might want to take a look at last year's RB draft picks in the first 2 rounds. I pointed them out earlier:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/773359-lets-talk-about-current-depth-page2.html#post2587564

If you do a little research on those players, you'll find that more than one was hurt before the leaves turned.

 

[patchick]

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.

Question: when FA starts do you..

A. Take your rookie class into consideration as part of the shape of your roster;

B. Mentally put aside your rookie class because they haven't proven anything yet, and move aggressively to fill positions like LT, CB/S, developmental QB and RB.

If it's A, then you are treating rookies as depth. If it's B, you're not. Personally, I vote A.

 

[IllegalContact]

You might want to take a look at last year's RB draft picks in the first 2 rounds. I pointed them out earlier:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/773359-lets-talk-about-current-depth-page2.html#post2587564

If you do a little research on those players, you'll find that more than one was hurt before the leaves turned.

yup....and here's 2nd round and later in previous years:
2009:
2/21 - lesean mccoy 960 total yards and 4 TD's
3/1 - shonn greene 560 total yards and 2 TD's
6/36 - bernard scott 360 total yards
7/41 - rashad jenning 200 total yards 2 TD's

2008:
2/13 - matt forte 1700 total yards and 12 TD's
2/24 - ray rice 700 total yards
3/1 - kevin smith 1300 yards and 9 TD's
3/10 - jamaal charles 600 yards and 1 TD
3/26 - steve slaton 1600 yards and 10 TD's
4/23 - tashard choice 600 yards and 2 TD's
5/14 - timothy hightower 400 yards and 10 TD's
7/20 - peyton hillis 500 yards and 5 TD's

2007:
brian leonard, brandon jackson, ahmad bradshaw

2006:
lendale white, MJD, jerious norwood, leon washington, jerome harrison

its called depth......how many RB's who have been given opportunities in their rookie years failed?

 

[Deus Irae]

Question: when FA starts do you..

A. Take your rookie class into consideration as part of the shape of your roster;

B. Mentally put aside your rookie class because they haven't proven anything yet, and move aggressively to fill positions like LT, CB/S, developmental QB and RB.

If it's A, then you are treating rookies as depth. If it's B, you're not. Personally, I vote A.

We're not dealing with free agency here, and we're not sculpting the team. That's the job of the Patriots.

What we are doing (or we were doing) is analyzing the current depth based upon what we know. You and I know absolutely nothing about what the rookie RBs will bring to the NFL table.

 

[IllegalContact]

We're not dealing with free agency here, and we're not sculpting the team. That's the job of the Patriots.

What we are doing (or we were doing) is analyzing the current depth based upon what we know. You and I know absolutely nothing about what the rookie RBs will bring to the NFL table.

we don't know anything......but based on the past, when rookie RB's are called upon, most often they respond

 

[Deus Irae]

yup....and here's 2nd round and later in previous years:
2009:
2/21 - lesean mccoy 960 total yards and 4 TD's
3/1 - shonn greene 560 total yards and 2 TD's
6/36 - bernard scott 360 total yards
7/41 - rashad jenning 200 total yards 2 TD's

2008:
2/13 - matt forte 1700 total yards and 12 TD's
2/24 - ray rice 700 total yards
3/1 - kevin smith 1300 yards and 9 TD's
3/10 - jamaal charles 600 yards and 1 TD
3/26 - steve slaton 1600 yards and 10 TD's
4/23 - tashard choice 600 yards and 2 TD's
5/14 - timothy hightower 400 yards and 10 TD's
7/20 - peyton hillis 500 yards and 5 TD's

2007:
brian leonard, brandon jackson, ahmad bradshaw

2006:
lendale white, MJD, jerious norwood, leon washington, jerome harrison

its called depth......how many RB's who have been given opportunities in their rookie years failed?

You're now trying to change your earlier argument, which was about staying healthy. The new argument is as bad as the first, but I'll deal with what you originally brought to the table:

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

Out of 7 RBs drafted in the first two rounds last year, 2 were lost to injury right off the bat, one was injured most of the season, and only one played in all 16 games.

 

[Deus Irae]

we don't know anything......but based on the past, when rookie RB's are called upon, most often they respond

..

 

[IllegalContact]

..

laughing at yourself for using one single year as the basis for your silly opinion?

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Why are you arguing about rookie RB's? RB's come out of nowhere every year and produce. It's probably the easiest position to replace/pick up a guy.

We picked up Woodhead off the waiver wire and he worked wonders. Arian Foster was undrafted. Who thought Mike Tolbert would fill in so well for Ryan Mathews? Who thought Peyton Hillis would have such a good season that he'd end up on the cover of Madden? Who thought UDFA BJGE would do what he did for us last year?

RB is one of the easiest positions for rookies to contribute. That doesn't mean Vereen and Ridley are shoe-ins to be great. But generally, they take the least amount of time to adapt because they have a less complex job than DB's or LB's or WR's.

Why continue wasting your time talking about RB's? Let's talk about some real depth problems aka the OLB we've needed since about 2008 and the RDE we've needed since Seymour was dealt in 2009. Two of the most important positions in our scheme and two of the biggest reasons our pass rush has absolutely blown for the last 3-4 years, and they have not been well-stocked or addressed adequately since 2007/2008. That's simply inexcusable in my opinion.

I really don't understand how you trade a talent like Seymour and expect to replace him with over-the-hill cheap veteran free agents or 7th round picks. It's just plain stupid. Or maybe it's arrogant since you think you take a bunch of JAG's and turn them into adequate DE's.

 

[IllegalContact]

You're now trying to change your earlier argument, which was about staying healthy. The new argument is as bad as the first, but I'll deal with what you originally brought to the table:



Out of 7 RBs drafted in the first two rounds last year, 2 were lost to injury right off the bat, one was injured most of the season, and only one played in all 16 games.

yup....and in the previous 4 years, 2nd and 3rd rounders thrived.....so what's your point.......they're not goint to produce or they won't be available as backups?

are you saying they are precluded from producing because they're rookies?

 

[Deus Irae]

laughing at yourself for using one single year as the basis for your silly opinion?

Laughing at you for one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on this board. Just going back to 2009, you ignored round 1 where all 3 RBs taken have been disappointments. Now, enough with the running backs, as far as I'm concerned. The laughs from ridiculous arguments such as yours have been great, but it's getting the thread derailed.

 

[IllegalContact]

Laughing at you for one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on this board. Now, enough with the running backs. The laughs from ridiculous arguments such as yours have been great, but it's getting the thread derailed.

right.......you can't count on rookie RB's.....gotcha


now run along

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Given your tendency to completely disregard the responsibilities of OLBs in the run game, I'm not surprised to see this from you. They tried this, and it was bad. He can't hold up against the run. He has no pass rushing moves. All he has going for him at OLB is his speed.

I am not ignoring the OLB run support responsibilities, I am actually applying a higher value to the OLB pass rushing responsiilities. Guyton played OLB for a cup of coffee last year, and I agree that it was a failed experiment, but Nink does not rush the passer, he just bumps boobs with whoever is blocking him. I like Nink, but he is what he is. He is a backup LB playing too many minutes every week. I would give Guyton a chance to use his speed to provide a little pressure on the QB, he really can't be any worse than what we have gotten with Nink and TBC.

I believe that this is the one glaring hole in our defense, get a guy who puts pressure on the QB every passing down and it changes the way the QB plays, he becomes afraid to step up into the pocket, he gets nervous feet and never really gets set before he throws the ball, he runs earlier than he normally would. Sacks wake the crowd up and motivate them to make noise, and the fans get the players going when they are loud. Gellette is not a loud stadium and there are many times when it was really quiet for long periods of the game, a sack on an important play will cause it to get loud. I know that BB likes to tell us that sacks are overrated, but that is because he doesn't seem to be able to find anybody who can get them. Of course, if he tried as often as he tries to find a WR, we might have a guy on the team already.

 

[mgteich]

I don't believe that this is proven in any sense. Sure there are rookie who have been called upon and succeeded. There are also rookie running backs that did very little when called upon. Please provide analyses of running drafted in the past few years and their "success" rate. You must have something to back up your statement.

we don't know anything......but based on the past, when rookie RB's are called upon, most often they respond

 

[IllegalContact]

I don't believe that this is proven in any sense. Sure there are rookie who have been called upon and succeeded. There are also rookie running backs that did very little when called upon. Please provide analyses of running drafted in the past few years and their "success" rate. You must have something to back up your statement.

I did it in an earlier post.......2010 was a unique year in terms of low rookie RB production. However, the 4 previous years produced many RB's from the 2nd and later who produced in their rookie years.....this is just a partial list

2009: lesean mccoy, shonn greene, rashad jennings, bernard scott
2008: matt forte, ray rice, kevin smith, steve slaton, tashard choice
2007: brian leonard, brandon jackson
2006: lendale white, MJD, jerious norwood, leon washington

the bottom line is that it is ridiculous to assert that vereen and ridley will not give the pats good depth simply because they're rookies.

 

[mgteich]

This year is a special circumstance. We ahve never had free agency after the draft. I agree that rookies should be considered before signing free agents. However, this analysis is beyond anything we here are qualified to do. Developmental needs were indeed met in the 2011 draft (QB, CB, TE, OG and even RB in this draft).

At MOST, we will only need to have to count on Solder and ONE running back. Going into free agency, I would certainly not rule out upgrades at some of the positions we drafted, especially LT and RB. Of course, most of us tend to focus on areas not addressed in the draft: DE, OLB and WR. Belichick may or may nto see these positions as positions of need.

RUNNING BACK
We might say that we signed two running backs so our needs at running back have been met. If the team has evaluated Vareen andbeleive he is ready to start if Green-Ellis and Woodhead are injured, then that's fine. Perhaps that is the case, perhaps not. If Ridley is judged to be ready to be the short yardage back or is ready for some other role, that's fine. BUT, we here on this board have no reason to believe that Belichick is ready to count on two unproven rookies for these roles if he finds a reasonable free agent option to fill one of these backup roles (Faulk or someone else).

LEFT TACKLE
Belichick and dante know whether they drafted Solder as a 2011 starter, as a 2011 starter if there is an injury, or to play only in 2012. This will determine how hard we go after Light. They also know much more about Kaczur's health than we do. I certainly beleive tha we could use LT as a #3 this year or next. This need has been "met" only if we are expecting to keep Light or Kaczur for theat least 2 seasons.

CORNER/SAFETY
Here I think that we are indeed all set. We had 5 corners, 3 safeties, and some Ster's and we added Dowling. We have met the need for a young defensive back. Still, we might re-sign Page. Dowling need NOT be counted on this year. There was no clear and present need. The need was to develop a defensive back.

DEVELOPMENTAL QUARTEBACK
Again, we met our need in the draft, with no help needed this eyar.

Question: when FA starts do you..

A. Take your rookie class into consideration as part of the shape of your roster;

B. Mentally put aside your rookie class because they haven't proven anything yet, and move aggressively to fill positions like LT, CB/S, developmental QB and RB.

If it's A, then you are treating rookies as depth. If it's B, you're not. Personally, I vote A.

 

[Deus Irae]

I did it in an earlier post.......2010 was a unique year in terms of low rookie RB production. However, the 4 previous years produced many RB's from the 2nd and later who produced in their rookie years.....this is just a partial list

2009: lesean mccoy, shonn greene, rashad jennings, bernard scott
2008: matt forte, ray rice, kevin smith, steve slaton, tashard choice
2007: brian leonard, brandon jackson
2006: lendale white, MJD, jerious norwood, leon washington

the bottom line is that it is ridiculous to assert that vereen and ridley will not give the pats good depth simply because they're rookies.

Bottom line is that you didn't bother to read what I'd posted, because I didn't claim that no rookies are capable of providing depth. Bottom line is that you ignored the first round in 2009. Bottom line is you deliberately left out the players who didn't produce (see someone like Tony Fiammetta or Mike Goodson, for example) in the lower rounds.

Bottom line is you were talking out your backside from the start.

 

[ay-yo]

RUNNING BACK
BUT, we here on this board have no reason to believe that Belichick is ready to count on two unproven rookies for these roles if he finds a reasonable free agent option to fill one of these backup roles (Faulk or someone else).

We also have no reason to believe Bill is looking for a free agent option.

It's anybody's guess as to Bill's opinion of the rb's and what they will actually produce. My guess is Vereen ends up with over 100 total touches and over 500 yards on offense this year.

LEFT TACKLE
Belichick and dante know whether they drafted Solder as a 2011 starter, as a 2011 starter if there is an injury, or to play only in 2012. This will determine how hard we go after Light. They also know much more about Kaczur's health than we do. I certainly beleive tha we could use LT as a #3 this year or next. This need has been "met" only if we are expecting to keep Light or Kaczur for theat least 2 seasons.

I see Solder / Vollmer as your LT/RT and Kaczur as the swing(depth) tackle. If healthy Kaczur is excellent depth having started at both LT and RT for the Pats in the past. The quality of the starting LT may not be up to some people's standards but the depth is better than most, if not all, positions on the team. (I know Kaczur health is a big if. I don't know about his health and will happily concede to anybody who does.)

If we re-sign Matt Light then there's a domino effect and the depth is even better.

 

[ay-yo]

What we are doing (or we were doing) is analyzing the current depth based upon what we know. You and I know absolutely nothing about what the rookie RBs will bring to the NFL table.

But what we do know is that two rookies are the only current depth we have at rb. Are you suggesting we should just not discuss this position b/c we don't have a large enough body of evidence?

 

[Deus Irae]

But what we do know is that two rookies are the only current depth we have at rb. Are you suggesting we should just not discuss this position b/c we don't have a large enough body of evidence?

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/773359-lets-talk-about-current-depth-page2.html#post2587512