Back of the Roster Battle: Wide Recievers

[Armchair Quarterback]

Assuming Welker, Branch and Ochocinco are in, which other recievers make the final roster?

 

[BlueThunder]

Price for sure.....

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Nice job, I gave Slater an extra H and took an O from Price.

 

[Haley]

I'm expecting Julien Edelman, Matthew Slater and Taylor Price.

Slater for what he brings to ST. Edelman as backup for Welker (and ST). And Price because he looks super sexy so far!

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Replying a post in the RB thread here...

I agree with this. I don't see why you'd want to cut a guy who is essentially a 2nd year WR who was pretty good last year, to keep Sammy Morris.


BJGE, Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead.

We keep 6 actual WR. - Branch, Welker, Ocho, Price, Tate, Edelman

Which of your 6 receivers would be on the 46 man gameday roster? In my opinion, if you use spots on the 53 man for those 6, they all need to be active on gameday. I can't imagine wanting to use a roster spot for Tate/Edelman for kick/punt returns if they're not going to play. Also, I can't imagine Price not being active for a second year in a row. That leaves Welker, Branch, and 85.

That's basically my reasoning for carrying 5 instead of 6, with all being active. And using the extra spot for a 4th TE, keeping both Yeatman and Smith, with only one of them on the gameday roster.

 

[RayClay]

Nice job, I gave Slater an extra H and took an O from Price.

These are difficult times, we understand.

 

[Synovia]

Replying a post in the RB thread here...


Which of your 6 receivers would be on the 46 man gameday roster? In my opinion, if you use spots on the 53 man for those 6, they all need to be active on gameday. I can't imagine wanting to use a roster spot for Tate/Edelman for kick/punt returns if they're not going to play. Also, I can't imagine Price not being active for a second year in a row. That leaves Welker, Branch, and 85.

That's basically my reasoning for carrying 5 instead of 6, with all being active. And using the extra spot for a 4th TE, keeping both Yeatman and Smith, with only one of them on the gameday roster.

Which of the six would be active on gameday would depend on who is healthy, who they're playing, and what the gameplan is, like pretty much everything else the patriots do.

Tate/Edelman aren't punt/kick returners. They're wide receivers. Welker and Branch (IMO), will both be gone next year. I like Welker, but frankly, hes going to cost too much for his role in the offense. At some point, we need to start training the kids up, and I like this current batch of kids.

Welker and Branch have both missed a lot of games due to injury the last couple years, and ocho is on the wrong side of 30. We're going to need some depth at this position.



As to Yeatman and Smith, is having a 2nd Blocking-only tight end, when we have two good, young, versatile tight ends available long term, really more important than having an extra WR, a position that tends to take some time for players to learn?

Its a lot easier to find a midseason injury replacement for a blocking only tight-end (crumpler maybe?) than it is to find one for a WR who know the patriots complicated sight-adjustment based offense.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Replying a post in the RB thread here...


Which of your 6 receivers would be on the 46 man gameday roster? In my opinion, if you use spots on the 53 man for those 6, they all need to be active on gameday. I can't imagine wanting to use a roster spot for Tate/Edelman for kick/punt returns if they're not going to play. Also, I can't imagine Price not being active for a second year in a row. That leaves Welker, Branch, and 85.

That's basically my reasoning for carrying 5 instead of 6, with all being active. And using the extra spot for a 4th TE, keeping both Yeatman and Smith, with only one of them on the gameday roster.

Your 4th TE comment is something I've been chewing on and most here are dismissing out of hand. But if you plan to run lots of 2 & 3 TE sets...you better have 4.

 

[RayClay]

We need to see some more people on kickoffs too. Am I insane, or does Slater look nearly as good as Tate as a WR? I say this, because the role of 5th-6th receiver on any team is essentially trying to avoid splinters.

If Ocho and Price work in, that means 9 or 10 opportunities to go long, or surprise the D, with the rest of the season being the 3 other WRs trying to take away opportunities from Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Faulk, Vereen or others.

An ass on the bench with potential but little production is the same as any other ass in the short term.

 

[Synovia]

Your 4th TE comment is something I've been chewing on and most here are dismissing out of hand. But if you plan to run lots of 2 & 3 TE sets...you better have 4.

I still think that the "All Block" tight end is too easy to replace to take up a 4th roster spot with one.


I mean really, how much of a performance improvement is the lesser of Smith/Yeatman going to give you over, say, lineing Maneri up at TE on those goal line/short yardage plays.

 

[RayClay]

By the way, I have no insight into what the coaches think of Tate, but his kickoffs were average after starting out very good, if i recall.

We forget that lots of teams have under performing WRs with potential, or overachieving WRs they can't keep and there are lots of players who should be dying to make this team based on kickoff returns. Tate was middle of the pack in 2010.

 

[TheSolderKing]

I voted for the 2 that won't not the ones that will

 

[Synovia]

We need to see some more people on kickoffs too. Am I insane, or does Slater look nearly as good as Tate as a WR? I say this, because the role of 5th-6th receiver on any team is essentially trying to avoid splinters.

If Ocho and Price work in, that means 9 or 10 opportunities to go long, or surprise the D, with the rest of the season being the 3 other WRs trying to take away opportunities from Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Faulk, Vereen or others.
.

The Patriots have never worked like this though. Randy Moss is pretty much the only receiver they've ever had who played every snap. Even Welker, at his highest, only plays 70% of the snaps.

WR Wes Welker -- 715 of 1,012 (70.7 percent)
WR Deion Branch -- 521 of 1,012 (51.5 percent)
WR Brandon Tate -- 502 of 1,012 (49.6 percent)
WR Randy Moss -- 204 of 1,012 (20.2 percent)
WR Julian Edelman -- 174 of 1,012 (17.2 percent)
WR Taylor Price -- 26 of 1,012 (2.6 percent)
WR Matthew Slater - 25 of 1,012 (2.5 percent)


Now, Branch's numbers were actually higher (probably 65%, because he missed games 1-4,) and Moss played almost every play those first couple of games, but as you can see, there's plenty of rotation going on there.

 

[Synovia]

By the way, I have no insight into what the coaches think of Tate, but his kickoffs were average after starting out very good, if i recall.

No, they weren't. He was consistently above average. The only thing that dropped off were the TDs.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Moving from the RB thread again...

And I disagree.

And I don't think you'd be carrying Tate and Edelman as returners. IMO, Welker and Branch are both gone next year.

Do you really think that Both Yeatman and Smith are going to be better/more usefull players than Tate/Edelman? I don't. I don't see any reason to have two tightends on the roster who are purely blockers.

What do you disagree with? That if you keep those 6 receivers that they all need to be active on gameday? If you disagree, please explain which one you would leave off the gameday roster.

As far as which player is more useful, Yeatman vs. Tate or Smith vs. Edelman, if they're active then Tate/Edelman is more useful. But I don't think that last spot is going to someone that will be active on gameday. And I think an inactive 4th TE is more useful than an inactive 6th WR.

With the number of 3 TE plays they're running, what happens if one has a minor injury? I should mention that I don't think Yeatman or Smith will make it to the practice squad, which I guess has a lot to do with my reasoning.

 

[mgteich]

As you well know, if our blocking TE is injured, a backup OL functions as a blocking TE. I certainly wouldn't keep Smith or Yeatman as a backup for Hernandez. That backup is a WR.

Your 4th TE comment is something I've been chewing on and most here are dismissing out of hand. But if you plan to run lots of 2 & 3 TE sets...you better have 4.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

As you well know, if our blocking TE is injured, a backup OL functions as a blocking TE. I certainly wouldn't keep Smith or Yeatman as a backup for Hernandez. That backup is a WR.

Carrying 5 active receivers (and slater), if one of your receivers in injured, you still have 5 options. I'm not sure the fact that an injured TE could be replaced is unique here.

Would you keep Yeatman/Smith as a backup for Smith/Yeatman, and Gronk?

 

[Synovia]

Moving from the RB thread again...



What do you disagree with? That if you keep those 6 receivers that they all need to be active on gameday? If you disagree, please explain which one you would leave off the gameday roster.

I explained that above.

As far as which player is more useful, Yeatman vs. Tate or Smith vs. Edelman, if they're active then Tate/Edelman is more useful. But I don't think that last spot is going to someone that will be active on gameday. And I think an inactive 4th TE is more useful than an inactive 6th WR.

I think you're making a very wrong assumption in that who is inactive/active stays the same every week. It doesn't. At all. More WRs are active agaisnt teams with poor secondaries. More TEs against teams who have trouble against the run.

I don't think any one of them is going to be on the inactive roster every week.

With the number of 3 TE plays they're running, what happens if one has a minor injury? I should mention that I don't think Yeatman or Smith will make it to the practice squad, which I guess has a lot to do with my reasoning.

Then Maneri, or Light, or Solder, or whoever is the 3rd tackle plays the role of blocking TE for a handful of plays. Or we sign Crumpler, or one of the myriad of 250+lb guys who can block. Its not exactly a tough position to fill.


As to all those 3TE sets, I went through Reiss's stuff, for as many games I could find, and it looks like 2 or 3 plays a game. Do we really want to reserve a roster spot for a guy who is the backup to the guy who is only necessary 2-3 plays a game? Thats only slightly more ridiculous than reserving a spot for a backup long snapper, or a backup kicker. You find someone who does something else who can fit in a pinch.

 

[RayClay]

The Patriots have never worked like this though. Randy Moss is pretty much the only receiver they've ever had who played every snap. Even Welker, at his highest, only plays 70% of the snaps.

WR Wes Welker -- 715 of 1,012 (70.7 percent)
WR Deion Branch -- 521 of 1,012 (51.5 percent)
WR Brandon Tate -- 502 of 1,012 (49.6 percent)
WR Randy Moss -- 204 of 1,012 (20.2 percent)
WR Julian Edelman -- 174 of 1,012 (17.2 percent)
WR Taylor Price -- 26 of 1,012 (2.6 percent)
WR Matthew Slater - 25 of 1,012 (2.5 percent)


Now, Branch's numbers were actually higher (probably 65%, because he missed games 1-4,) and Moss played almost every play those first couple of games, but as you can see, there's plenty of rotation going on there.

You're using training camp numbers. Show me a 5th or better yet, a 6th receiver, not including TEs or RBs who got significant touches in the regular season. Changing the question does not make the answer relevant.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

I explained that above.


I think you're making a very wrong assumption in that who is inactive/active stays the same every week. It doesn't. At all. More WRs are active agaisnt teams with poor secondaries. More TEs against teams who have trouble against the run.

I don't think any one of them is going to be on the inactive roster every week.



Then Maneri, or Light, or Solder, or whoever is the 3rd tackle plays the role of blocking TE for a handful of plays. Or we sign Crumpler, or one of the myriad of 250+lb guys who can block. Its not exactly a tough position to fill.


As to all those 3TE sets, I went through Reiss's stuff, for as many games I could find, and it looks like 2 or 3 plays a game. Do we really want to reserve a roster spot for a guy who is the backup to the guy who is only necessary 2-3 plays a game? Thats only slightly more ridiculous than reserving a spot for a backup long snapper, or a backup kicker. You find someone who does something else who can fit in a pinch.

I realize that the gameday roster will change from week to week. But...

For the sake of discussion, lets just assume everyone on the roster is healthy, and you have 6WR + Slater.

Under what scenarios do you think all 6 will be active, if everyone on the roster is healthy?

In the more realistic scenario that not all 6 are active, WHO do you sit? Again, lets say all 6 are healthy. Throw a name out. You have 6 to choose from.

If you're don't have a good answer to the last question, that's fine. Lets go at it from the other direction: of the 6, which are active no matter what, again assuming everyone is healthy?

And on your points on using an OL to fill the role, and the small number of plays involving 3 TE's... All good points.