What is Slater's ST coverage play worth?

[supafly]

How much offensive impact do you expect a #5 or #6 WR to have in a two tight end base offense? The realistic answer is essentially 0, whether that player is Slater or any other real receiver.

Good point, as usual. I think the same question regarding production can be asked about some of the wedge/reserve LB's that we've seen recently too.

The bottom line is that if Belichick chooses a player for the 53 man roster, he obviously feels as though their benefit outweighs the potential benefit of another player who did not make it.

In Slater's case, Belichick feels as though he is a leader both on and off the field, and sets the tone in the high energy and momentum changing special teams units.

I don't imagine that he views him as anything more than a reserve emergency player for WR/S, should it come down to it. I think we really only saw him out there due to a lack of depth and talent in yrs past in both the WR and S units, so hopefully we don't have to see that again.

 

[Salva135]

Here's a simple way of looking at it: Slater and, for that matter, Ebner are good enough at what they do that BB has had them active for pretty much every game they've been healthy.

And as I've said multiple times in the past, Belichick feels STs are important enough that he often devotes seven spots on the game day roster (not just the 53) for players who play 90%+ of their snaps on STs.

I agree, and the Pats' ST is great because of guys like Slater. But the OP showed some basic stats and I wonder if anyone would bother applying all of the cap/stats/FO efforts into figuring out the best value guys who are basically exclusively STers.

Again, Matt Slater has been excellent. Pro Bowl and all. But is his value replaceable, and how easily, and at what cost? These are just questions the football analytics guys might want to ponder.

 

[Ian]

Certainly a reasonable and fair point, Ian.

We all know that Slater has a tremendous amount of value as a ST-only player, and that Belichick considers him one of the leaders on the team. He sets the tone both on the field, and in the locker room.

I think that we should just probably consider him a ST-only player like that of a long snapper, kicker, or punter. This way we won't have to worry about him potentially stealing an up and coming WR's spot.

I will say I've come around on his value because you can't underestimate the importance of good special teams play and we've been fortunate that they've been pretty solid in that regard. If they gave up field position it would be easy to consider replacing him, but that isn't the case and he's clearly a huge asset.

 

[BTTA]

So really you just wanted to rattle your intellectual saber and stick your nose up in lieu of actually adding anything to the conversation?

As a starting place, yes. Although there's nothing about my thinking on this topic that would justify the use of the term "saber."

 

[BTTA]

Let's imagine this: coming out of the preseason, the top four WR's are Amendola, Jones, Dobson, and Edelman. Including Slater, the team decides to keep 5 WR's.

But the coaches don't want to let Boyce go, seeing too much potential there, and believe he'd be ready to play well after half a season more of practice and observation. They believe he'll be scooped up if the try to stash him on the practice squad. They've also seen him do well on coverage teams, in practice and exhibition games.

So they consider keeping him instead of Slater, and tellng him this: "Your opportunity to make the club is to replace Slater on coverage teams, while you learn how to be an NFL WR. So study him (here's the film) and if you also progress as a WR, in a year or so you'll have a shot at the regular rotation on offense." How close could he come to Slater on coverage teams, and how fast? If he were 85% as effective as Slater, how many coverage stops does that translate to that he doesn't make, that Slater would have, and how valuable is that vs. what he can eventually contribute on offense?

 

[Froob]

Let's imagine this: coming out of the preseason, the top four WR's are Amendola, Jones, Dobson, and Edelman. Including Slater, the team decides to keep 5 WR's.

But the coaches don't want to let Boyce go, seeing too much potential there, and believe he'd be ready to play well after half a season more of practice and observation. They believe he'll be scooped up if the try to stash him on the practice squad. They've also seen him do well on coverage teams, in practice and exhibition games.

So they consider keeping him instead of Slater, and tellng him this: "Your opportunity to make the club is to replace Slater on coverage teams, while you learn how to be an NFL WR. So study him (here's the film) and if you also progress as a WR, in a year or so you'll have a shot at the regular rotation on offense." How close could he come to Slater on coverage teams, and how fast? If he were 85% as effective as Slater, how many coverage stops does that translate to that he doesn't make, that Slater would have, and how valuable is that vs. what he can eventually contribute on offense?

If it were that easy then someone would have done it by now. Nobody in the league is a good as Slater downing punts. Only way Boyce gets cut is if he looks terrible in camp and gets caught sleeping with BB's girl.

 

[Avenger]

Stop. Enough with the mental gymnastics trying to cut Slater.

 

[Don Kipines]

Would we ever have cut Larry Izzo in his prime? Because that's how good this guy is -- even better, because he's a much more dynamic athlete.

The Pats' punt and kick cover teams have been outstanding for the last two years and the punt coverage has been great for the last three. If we had any kind of kick return game at all we'd have the top special teams unit in the league. That's why bringing Washington in is so interesting -- special teams has a chance to be a real all-around difference-maker for the team this year.

Last year we had a number of "ST-only" players, which clogged the roster a little too much. But some of their draft picks seem to have been made with an eye out to fixing that. Beauharnais and Collins might allow them to keep a linebacker or two who can actually play defense on the roster instead of devoting extra roster spots to Tarpinian, Rivera, Tracy White and Koutovides.

But some of those ST-only guys are almost definitely going to stay. It's really hard to imagine them parting with either Slater or Ebner, judging by last year.

 

[patchick]

I just don't get the feeling he wants to play offense bad enough to get better and part of me wonders if that's why Belichick tried him instead on defense.

It's hard for me to imagine that Slater's limitations are attributable to desire or effort. This is a guy who grew up understanding the JOB of football, and whose coaches have always gushed about his attitude and work ethic. (He's a captain for that very reason.) What's more, I believe he's talked about the mental adjustment it took to commit himself to ST. The guy just has lousy hands. :confused2:

As for the value proposition, let's lay it out:

1. All-Pro ST Captain + Very Weak #5 WR -- versus -- 2. Average ST + Average #5 WR.

IMO, the difference becomes clearest when you picture a typical game for each player. Player 1 will be active for each game and in on about 20% of the plays. You can expect him to be a key impact player for many of those plays. Player 2 has about an even chance to be active for a given game. If he is he'll see about the same 20% of plays, and will not be expected to be a key impact player on any of them.

The only scenario where player 2 becomes more valuable is if the team has a major run of injuries at WR (and doesn't sign anybody else or redesign the game plan to severely limit multi-WR sets). Otherwise, player 1 should be a much greater contributor -- not even counting what he brings to the team in his captain role.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Let's imagine this: coming out of the preseason, the top four WR's are Amendola, Jones, Dobson, and Edelman. Including Slater, the team decides to keep 5 WR's.

But the coaches don't want to let Boyce go, seeing too much potential there, and believe he'd be ready to play well after half a season more of practice and observation. They believe he'll be scooped up if the try to stash him on the practice squad. They've also seen him do well on coverage teams, in practice and exhibition games.

So they consider keeping him instead of Slater, and tellng him this: "Your opportunity to make the club is to replace Slater on coverage teams, while you learn how to be an NFL WR. So study him (here's the film) and if you also progress as a WR, in a year or so you'll have a shot at the regular rotation on offense." How close could he come to Slater on coverage teams, and how fast? If he were 85% as effective as Slater, how many coverage stops does that translate to that he doesn't make, that Slater would have, and how valuable is that vs. what he can eventually contribute on offense?

Slater's worth a spot on the roster. He makes the team - end of story. If Boyce has too much potential to for the Pats to let him go than someone else will get cut at WR or at another position.

 

[chasa]

but if we cut slater surely we can use those extra 1's we got in the mallet trade to get fitzgerald from the cards right?

 

[JackBauer]

It's no hate on Slater, I really like him, but what is the real value of a "return stop" and how much is a guy who gets that rate of "return stops" worth on a team vs. a replacement value guy?

Why not ask the Broncos?

 

[BadMoFo]

Worth enough to make him a captain.

 

[JackBauer]

I agree with this, but moreover Slater's problem is he gives you nothing in terms of production, period, as a receiver.

I've complained about him in the past and honestly I just don't get the feeling he wants to play offense bad enough to get better and part of me wonders if that's why Belichick tried him instead on defense. Defensively at least he can potentially chase down a receiver or a back and tackle them. Offensively he just can't get open so expecting anything from him there is pointless.

But I love him as a special teams player. I just don't want to see him steal a receiver's roster spot from another guy who can at least give them something greater than "0" if - heaven forbid - they're down two or more players later in the year. We've already seen how that's played out and I'd rather not experience it again.

From what we know about Slater's character, I highly doubt it's a matter of attitude and rather suspect it's an issue of skillset, or lack thereof.

 

[PatriotReign]

Would we ever have cut Larry Izzo in his prime? Because that's how good this guy is -- even better, because he's a much more dynamic athlete.

The Pats' punt and kick cover teams have been outstanding for the last two years and the punt coverage has been great for the last three. If we had any kind of kick return game at all we'd have the top special teams unit in the league. That's why bringing Washington in is so interesting -- special teams has a chance to be a real all-around difference-maker for the team this year.

Last year we had a number of "ST-only" players, which clogged the roster a little too much. But some of their draft picks seem to have been made with an eye out to fixing that. Beauharnais and Collins might allow them to keep a linebacker or two who can actually play defense on the roster instead of devoting extra roster spots to Tarpinian, Rivera, Tracy White and Koutovides.

But some of those ST-only guys are almost definitely going to stay. It's really hard to imagine them parting with either Slater or Ebner, judging by last year.

Yes. Larry Izzo was indeed a beast on special teams, but the difference between him and Slater is the fact that he was a linebacker who on occasion could actually come in and contribute on defense. I don’t think any good potential linebackers were cut to keep him on the roster. Slater on the other hand is classified as a receiver and will more than likely keep a young developmental receiver off the team.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Yes. Larry Izzo was indeed a beast on special teams, but the difference between him and Slater is the fact that he was a linebacker who on occasion could actually come in and contribute on defense. I don’t think any good potential linebackers were cut to keep him on the roster. Slater on the other hand is classified as a receiver and will more than likely keep a young developmental receiver off the team.

How much do you think your hypothetical young developmental WR will contribute this year compared to what Slater will? Or ever for that matter. If one of these WR show enough to earn a roster spot there will be room for both him and Slater.

 

[nabwong]

Cut him I say. All he does is stop returners in their tracks. We can save money by replacing him with a rookie Wr. Then at least the opposing offense will not be able to tire our defense with long drives, score faster TDs against us and Tom Brady will get more of the ball.

 

[JackBauer]

Yes. Larry Izzo was indeed a beast on special teams, but the difference between him and Slater is the fact that he was a linebacker who on occasion could actually come in and contribute on defense. I don’t think any good potential linebackers were cut to keep him on the roster. Slater on the other hand is classified as a receiver and will more than likely keep a young developmental receiver off the team.

Izzo was no different from, say, Tracy White: a ST stud who you never, ever wanted to see taking snaps on defense.

 

[Nunchucks]

I just wonder how other teams manage to stop other teams from returning punts and kick offs for TDs without the ace ST play of Slater.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Yes. Larry Izzo was indeed a beast on special teams, but the difference between him and Slater is the fact that he was a linebacker who on occasion could actually come in and contribute on defense. I don’t think any good potential linebackers were cut to keep him on the roster. Slater on the other hand is classified as a receiver and will more than likely keep a young developmental receiver off the team.

Slater is classified as a WR solely because the NFL refuses to create a "ST" position.

The last WR isn't competing with Slater for a spot; he's competing with an extra DB, OL, etc.