The Case for 5 RBs

[DarrylStingley]

1. Ridley and Vereen are obvious keepers.
2. Blount showed enough and is a big back with some good upside. He stays.
3. They need better KR than they've gotten and Leon can run a bit. He stays too.
4. Bolden averaged almost 5 yards a carry last year and was becoming a mainstay in the RB rotation until he got busted. Unless you believe that his play was HGH fueled, I don't see how you let go of a young player with that kind of upside.

So do you buy that you keep them all? If not, why not?

If so, where do you cut some fat? Do you really need HooMan? He's not really great at anything. Ballard hasn't exactly lit it up this pre-season. Maybe they can cut one of the lower safeties or CBs and rely on the practice squad to help them if there's an injury or two. Maybe Tebow and his wobbly passes go.

Thoughts would be welcomed.

 

[Sicilian]

While I agree that all five seem to have some value, for me there are DE's, DT's, and DB's I am having trouble cutting right now. Going with only 4 RB's would allow the Pats to keep an extra body at those positions.

 

[Bruins29]

Maybe they can cut one of the lower safeties or CBs and rely on the practice squad to help them if there's an injury or two. Maybe Tebow and his wobbly passes go.

Thoughts would be welcomed.

I have a thought. Why would you cut someone from a position with the least amount of depth to keep someone in a position with perhaps the strongest?

Relying on the practice squad is exactly that. Relying on practice players and again why do you just assume that is ok in the secondary to get by with that? Also, remember that every offensive play has usually one (sometimes zero) and max two RB on the field. Every defensive play always has 4 and more often these days 5 and even 6 secondary players.

We need more secondary players and less RB. Offense is sexy but not when you give up 35 points a game.

 

[Nehalem]

Brandon Bolden had pretty much one game of note all of last season... against the Bills.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Maybe the cut comes from an offensive position. Do they really need 4 TEs? Is HooMan a must. Why do they need 3 QBs? If they lose two in a game, let Julian play for the rest of that game and pick up someone later. Is Matthew Slater a must? Is he THAT valuable that he gets a WR spot even though he blows as a receiver? Maybe that's a yes.

In a season when the receiver spot is in some question with all the rookies, I think having depth at a position of strength (running back) makes a lot of sense.

I also think that Bolden will get scooped up by another team.

 

[Sicilian]

I have a thought. Why would you cut someone from a position with the least amount of depth to keep someone in a position with perhaps the strongest?

Relying on the practice squad is exactly that. Relying on practice players and again why do you just assume that is ok in the secondary to get by with that? Also, remember that every offensive play has usually one (sometimes zero) and max two RB on the field. Every defensive play always has 4 and more often these days 5 and even 6 secondary players.

We need more secondary players and less RB. Offense is sexy but not when you give up 35 points a game.

A good point, and another thing to keep in mind is Tom Brady. Yes, we're trying to be more balanced and run more, but in the event we're down to the 4th or 5th RB due to injury, we're unlikely to use him as a feature of the offense. At that stage, god forbid, we're more likely to just go pass heavy.

Defense, on the other hand, doesn't have that luxury. If a few players go down, we need people that are at least reasonable facsimiles of NFL players (or the best we can hope for out of the 53rd player on the roster).

Not to mention it is easier to grab a scrub RB off the street and implement him into the offense than to do so at CB or DE, should the need arise.

 

[RayClay]

Washington will not become the lead rb even if the other four are hurt, he is a KR. Should we keep four? If they are worth keeping, why not? One of them is primarily a 3rd down back so that means three and I think they are going to at least use two in a rotation, so that's one backup.

 

[SONS_OF_BELICHICK]

how about cut Tebow....and pick up an option qb for our practice squad....then we can keep Bolden.......

 

[patchick]

4. Bolden averaged almost 5 yards a carry last year and was becoming a mainstay in the RB rotation until he got busted. Unless you believe that his play was HGH fueled, I don't see how you let go of a young player with that kind of upside.

Here's an alternate version:

4. Bolden has shown talent, but remains behind Ridley and Blount as a "bell cow" and doesn't begin to approach Vereen's versatility and pass-catching ability. Meanwhile Washington figures to be active every game as the KR. That means Blount will only sniff the gameday roster in the case of injuries above him, and even then shouldn't expect too many carries. I don't see how you justify keeping him over other positions that are thinner.

 

[Sicilian]

Maybe the cut comes from an offensive position. Do they really need 4 TEs? Is HooMan a must. Why do they need 3 QBs? If they lose two in a game, let Julian play for the rest of that game and pick up someone later. Is Matthew Slater a must? Is he THAT valuable that he gets a WR spot even though he blows as a receiver? Maybe that's a yes.

In a season when the receiver spot is in some question with all the rookies, I think having depth at a position of strength (running back) makes a lot of sense.

I also think that Bolden will get scooped up by another team.

I think they keep 4 TE's, especially at the start because I don't expect them to PUP Gronk. Plus Hooman plays a few different positions, including lining up in a FB spot, so I almost see him as a hybrid anyway.

 

[Bruins29]

Maybe the cut comes from an offensive position. Do they really need 4 TEs? Is HooMan a must. Why do they need 3 QBs? If they lose two in a game, let Julian play for the rest of that game and pick up someone later. Is Matthew Slater a must? Is he THAT valuable that he gets a WR spot even though he blows as a receiver? Maybe that's a yes.

In a season when the receiver spot is in some question with all the rookies, I think having depth at a position of strength (running back) makes a lot of sense.

I also think that Bolden will get scooped up by another team.

Again, sometmes 3 or even 4 TEs are used on the field. And one can function as a Hback. 4 is a good number there.

Dont need 3QBs though. That is a waste of a roster spot IMO. If they lost TB and the backup it wouldnt matter who played at that point and yes, JE could fill in.

Slater is an All Pro player and a one of the best locker room guys on the roster. Cant see them cutting him.

 

[goheels22002]

I'm not sure what the big deal is. In 2011 - last visit to the Super Bowl - the Pats had five backs - Rookies Vereen and Ridley, Green-Ellis, Woodhead and Faulk. This looks pretty much the same.

 

[DarrylStingley]

I'm not sure what the big deal is. In 2011 - last visit to the Super Bowl - the Pats had five backs - Rookies Vereen and Ridley, Green-Ellis, Woodhead and Faulk. This looks pretty much the same.

Agreed but a lot of people are projecting or arguing for only 4 this year.

Slater as a locker room guy? Maybe but that stuff seems overrated to me. I know that everyone seems to love him though so maybe I'm just wrong. Hard to say either way in my opinion without a lot more knowledge of what actually goes on behind closed doors.

HooMan does play a bunch of spots but does he do any of them well? And do they really need someone for HB/FB?

 

[Sicilian]

I'm not sure what the big deal is. In 2011 - last visit to the Super Bowl - the Pats had five backs - Rookies Vereen and Ridley, Green-Ellis, Woodhead and Faulk. This looks pretty much the same.

If I remember correctly, wasn't Vereen injured most of that season? But regardless, the difference there is you had two rookie unknowns and an aging Faulk. You needed more depth there because you weren't sure what you were going to get out of anyone, with the exception of BJGE (who was solid but not a threat) and Woodhead (who you knew you couldn't use for much more than 10-12 touches a game).

 

[patsfaninpa]

I'm down for keeping 5 rb's. They get hurt all the time and miss a week or two here and there even if they don't have a major injury. How often has our qb gotten hurt and missed time? 2 times since 1993. Think about it? The odds of needing a 3rd qb are almost negligible.
And, if we do need one. I don't want him to be Tebow. Pick someone up off of waivers and they will be able to throw the ball better than the chosen one.

2 QB
5 RB
4 TE
6 WR
8 OL
5 DE
4 DT
6 LB
5 CB
5 DB
3 P/K/LS

All adds up to 53.

 

[Bruins29]

Agreed but a lot of people are projecting or arguing for only 4 this year.

Slater as a locker room guy? Maybe but that stuff seems overrated to me. I know that everyone seems to love him though so maybe I'm just wrong. Hard to say either way in my opinion without a lot more knowledge of what actually goes on behind closed doors.

HooMan does play a bunch of spots but does he do any of them well? And do they really need someone for HB/FB?

Its not overrated. Teams with lockerroom issues have issues. It affects the team,

Hoo is good blocking TE. Bolden could be a good RB but we dont know yet. He is ST value. We will see,

 

[patsfanincleveland]

In the first half Friday, the announcers (Eagles announcers) provided the money fact........

The offense ran over 100 plays more than the next offense in 2012.

If the offense is going toward 1300-1400 snaps plus playoffs....5 RB's that overlap is a real good idea.

 

[Oswlek]

I'm not sure what the big deal is. In 2011 - last visit to the Super Bowl - the Pats had five backs - Rookies Vereen and Ridley, Green-Ellis, Woodhead and Faulk. This looks pretty much the same.

They also had only 2TEs for much of that season and didn't have to carry Faulk until later when injuries opened up some room.

If you want NE to go with 4TEs, for instance, it will be very difficult to have 5RBs and still retain necessary defensive depth.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I'm down for keeping 5 rb's. They get hurt all the time and miss a week or two here and there even if they don't have a major injury. How often has our qb gotten hurt and missed time? 2 times since 1993. Think about it? The odds of needing a 3rd qb are almost negligible.
And, if we do need one. I don't want him to be Tebow. Pick someone up off of waivers and they will be able to throw the ball better than the chosen one.

2 QB
5 RB
4 TE
6 WR
8 OL
5 DE
4 DT
6 LB
5 CB
5 DB
3 P/K/LS

All adds up to 53.

Plus you could stash the 4th DT on the Practice Squad on merit, or PUP, (Armistead). Or call A Wilson the 6th LB, and carry another secondary/ST player like Ebner.

Cutting Tebow to the Shadow Roster makes sense to me, as no one else will take him. And the CFL season is already on-going.

 

[Deus Irae]

Bolden was active for 10 games last season.

0 carries in 2 games
less than 3ypc in 3 games
less than 4 ypc in 4 games
More than 5 ypc in 2 games

He had more than 5 carries in 2 games, 16 for 137 against BUF and 14 for 54 v. DEN

If he doesn't make the team, the Patriots won't be cutting the next Jim Brown or anything.