The Case for 5 RBs

[Kontradiction]

I can easily see Bolden getting cut. They'll have two former 1,000 yard rushers in Ridley and Blount and two speedsters in Vereen and Washington (who can also contribute as a KR). I don't see Bolden bringing enough to the table to justify that roster spot.

 

[PP2]

He "gets" a WR slot only because the NFL refuses to create a "ST" position.

(A) He's already a two-time Pro Bowler for his ST ability.
(B) How important is he in the locker room? After the Boston Marathon bombings, BB asked Slater to address the team.

He still flies down the field with reckless abandon. Makes me cringe every time I see that. As long as he does that, he is automatically on the roster.

I don't think we can sneak Zach to PS, so I foresee us going with 4 TE, which probably means 4 RB's. I would really hate for us to lose Bolden because he flashed huge potential, so we'll see what happens.

 

[BradyFTW!]

In a vacuum, there are a lot of positions where I'd like to keep an extra guy. But there's an opportunity cost to every guy you keep, and that's who you cut in his place. What position are you going to go one man short on so that you can keep both of Bolden and Blount?

Also, anyone seriously talking about cutting Slater to make room for Bolden needs to take a step or three back. Slater's a captain on this team and one of the best STers in the league, in the prime of his career. Bolden has done virtually nothing in the NFL, and provides virtually nothing that Blount and/or Ridley don't already do. I like the guy, but not if I have to cut Slater to keep him

 

[Fencer]

Our base offensive set has 2 TEs and 1 RB.

Why then would somebody suggest carrying 5 RBs and 3 TEs?

 

[jah]

I hope none of you advocate cutting the 5th RB or 4th TE before our third QB...

 

[jah]

Our base offensive set has 2 TEs and 1 RB.

Why then would somebody suggest carrying 5 RBs and 3 TEs?

The only tight ends on the roster for most of 2011 were Gronkowski and Hernandez.

 

[PP2]

The only tight ends on the roster for most of 2011 were Gronkowski and Hernandez.

See:

Sudfeld, Zach
Ballard, Kevin
Fells, Daniel
Hoomanawanui, Michael

Although you have to think that someone in PR is praying to every diety out there that the last one gets cut. Spellcheck can be a nightmare.

 

[patriot lifer]

In a vacuum, there are a lot of positions where I'd like to keep an extra guy. But there's an opportunity cost to every guy you keep, and that's who you cut in his place. What position are you going to go one man short on so that you can keep both of Bolden and Blount?

Also, anyone seriously talking about cutting Slater to make room for Bolden needs to take a step or three back. Slater's a captain on this team and one of the best STers in the league, in the prime of his career. Bolden has done virtually nothing in the NFL, and provides virtually nothing that Blount and/or Ridley don't already do. I like the guy, but not if I have to cut Slater to keep him

I think it's more a matter that pats fans have to get over the fact that BB is penciling him in. For designing the 53, it's a lot funner to not think about ST, but it's a reality that BB has had Larry Izzo's, Tracey White's, and Matthew Slater's on the team for many years where that is their sole purpose on the 53. But I think most on the board understand this.

 

[DarrylStingley]

It proves that he's not been anything special. At all.

Not in the least, DI.

Not seeing the field all that much can be a function of lots of things. Guys being ahead of you at a deep position. A suspension. The fact that some guys ahead of you were high picks.

The fact is that when he's been given the chance, he's done well. 5 yards per carry is nothing to sneeze at.

Does that make him Canton bound? Hardly. But it does suggest that he has the goods to be a depth guy for this team.

 

[DarrylStingley]

He "gets" a WR slot only because the NFL refuses to create a "ST" position.

(A) He's already a two-time Pro Bowler for his ST ability.
(B) How important is he in the locker room? After the Boston Marathon bombings, BB asked Slater to address the team.

Didn't know that. That speaks volumes.

I still wouldn't keep him because of his locker room presence but if he's really as good as his press on ST, I guess that's pretty damned important too.

 

[DarrylStingley]

He still flies down the field with reckless abandon. Makes me cringe every time I see that. As long as he does that, he is automatically on the roster.

I don't think we can sneak Zach to PS, so I foresee us going with 4 TE, which probably means 4 RB's. I would really hate for us to lose Bolden because he flashed huge potential, so we'll see what happens.

This gets a lot easier bubble wise if Gronk is on the PUP list. Make no mistake, I want Gronk on the field.

But if Gronk is out, do people really value keeping 4 TEs over 5 RBs?

And with Gronk, I still don't get why anyone would want HooMan over Bolden.

HooMan had his moments but when Bolden was featured last season, he performed. HooMan never had the equivalent of Bolden's dominating performance over the Bills. If HooMan disappeared, the Pats couldn't replicate his skill set with other players?

 

[BradyFTW!]

This gets a lot easier bubble wise if Gronk is on the PUP list. Make no mistake, I want Gronk on the field.

But if Gronk is out, do people really value keeping 4 TEs over 5 RBs?

And with Gronk, I still don't get why anyone would want HooMan over Bolden.

HooMan had his moments but when Bolden was featured last season, he performed. HooMan never had the equivalent of Bolden's dominating performance over the Bills. If HooMan disappeared, the Pats couldn't replicate his skill set with other players?

I do, and I don't even have Hoomanawanui making the roster. I have Gronk, Fells, Sudfeld and Ballard making it. At RB, I have Ridley, Vereen, Blount and Washington. Bolden's good, but going with 3 TEs, especially when 2 of them are health risks and three were injured last year, and you run a lot of 2TE sets... doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[patchick]

I do, and I don't even have Hoomanawanui making the roster. I have Gronk, Fells, Sudfeld and Ballard making it. At RB, I have Ridley, Vereen, Blount and Washington. Bolden's good, but going with 3 TEs, especially when 2 of them are health risks and three were injured last year, and you run a lot of 2TE sets... doesn't make much sense to me.

That's what baffles me, too. One backup for 2 key positions at TE?

Or to put it another way, could you ever imagine 4 TEs making the active 45? I can. Could you ever imagine 5RBs making the active 45? I can't.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not in the least, DI.

Not seeing the field all that much can be a function of lots of things. Guys being ahead of you at a deep position. A suspension. The fact that some guys ahead of you were high picks.

The fact is that when he's been given the chance, he's done well. 5 yards per carry is nothing to sneeze at.

Does that make him Canton bound? Hardly. But it does suggest that he has the goods to be a depth guy for this team.

All I've noted is that he's been nothing special and that him getting cut isn't going to be like cutting a Jim Brown. I've not bashed the guy in this thread, nor have I said that he's useless. However, you're slanting the data by focusing pretty much on the results of a single game, while I broke it down more and showed that to have been a clear exception as opposed to any kind of norm. He hasn't "done well" when he's given the chance. He's had 1 big running game in 10 active games. That's not the same thing.


If you take the Buffalo game out of the equation, Bolden's numbers are

Attempts: 40
Yards: 137
YPC: 3.425

His career sample size is so small that just removing one game leads to more than a 1.5 ypc drop. So let's not play games with the 5ypc thing.

 

[DarrylStingley]

All I've noted is that he's been nothing special and that him getting cut isn't going to be like cutting a Jim Brown. I've not bashed the guy in this thread, nor have I said that he's useless. However, you're slanting the data by focusing pretty much on the results of a single game, while I broke it down more and showed that to have been a clear exception as opposed to any kind of norm. He hasn't "done well" when he's given the chance. He's had 1 big running game in 10 active games. That's not the same thing.


If you take the Buffalo game out of the equation, Bolden's numbers are

Attempts: 40
Yards: 137
YPC: 3.425

His career sample size is so small that just removing one game leads to more than a 1.5 ypc drop. So let's not play games with the 5ypc thing.

Taking 16 carries out of the equation is a little unfair too. Some guys do better when they get the rock a lot. MAYBE those 16 carries give us an important data point regarding his upside.

Clearly, the Pats sesaon isn't going to hinge on whether he makes the team. But the guy we saw against Buffalo showed enough to warrant some more time on the 53, in my book.

I'm not sure where I'd err in order to keep him. I'd find a way, though. One or two RBs going down would not be a surprise, and this team is going to need to run and have the threat of a running game, especially until Gronk returns.

 

[Bruins29]

I still wouldn't keep him because of his locker room presence but if he's really as good as his press on ST, I guess that's pretty damned important too.

Something is wrong here. You have been a member of this board for over 5 years so I assume you have been a Pats fan for AT LEAST that long. But you dont know that Matthew Slater is an elite special team player never mind a top locker room guy.

You must be trolling.

 

[JackBauer]

I do, and I don't even have Hoomanawanui making the roster. I have Gronk, Fells, Sudfeld and Ballard making it. At RB, I have Ridley, Vereen, Blount and Washington. Bolden's good, but going with 3 TEs, especially when 2 of them are health risks and three were injured last year, and you run a lot of 2TE sets... doesn't make much sense to me.

Honestly I don't really know what they/anyone see(s) in Hoomanawanui. It'd be one thing if he were much of a receiving threat but his blocking is so atrocious I can't fathom any reason to justify keeping him around.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Something is wrong here. You have been a member of this board for over 5 years so I assume you have been a Pats fan for AT LEAST that long. But you dont know that Matthew Slater is an elite special team player never mind a top locker room guy.

You must be trolling.

Of course not. Calling someone a troll is weak.

I've been a Pats fan since 1971 and would NEVER troll any board.

I would not keep Slater JUST because he's a swell guy in the locker room.

As for teams, I know that he's good at them. How good is a matter of debate as guys get labelled as great teams players and sometimes the hype exceeds the performance in that there are fewer objective measurables with teams.

But your trolling accusation is ridiculous and offensive.

 

[Deus Irae]

Taking 16 carries out of the equation is a little unfair too.

It's not unfair at all. It's a sensible response to your post. You're the one building up his 5 ypc. I'm just pointing out that it's because of one outlier game.

T Some guys do better when they get the rock a lot. MAYBE those 16 carries give us an important data point regarding his upside.

Maybe the 16 point game has potential for future data, but his 14 carry game resulted in a ypc of less than 4 ypc, so it's also easy to argue that extra carries didn't help.

Clearly, the Pats sesaon isn't going to hinge on whether he makes the team. But the guy we saw against Buffalo showed enough to warrant some more time on the 53, in my book.

I'm not sure where I'd err in order to keep him. I'd find a way, though. One or two RBs going down would not be a surprise, and this team is going to need to run and have the threat of a running game, especially until Gronk returns.

Your argument (from the O.P.)

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 you're sinking your argument in the 5 ypc, and arguing upside based largely upon that one game. I'm simply showing that to be the product of that one outlier game. Players flash. It happens. What Bolden would be if he were carrying the ball 20 times a game is something we don't know. We do know that he hasn't been anything special as a running back to this point in his NFL career.

Champion him as you will, and I've got no beef with that. I can see spot 53 going to one of a few areas. My posting was just about that 5 ypc.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That's what baffles me, too. One backup for 2 key positions at TE?

Or to put it another way, could you ever imagine 4 TEs making the active 45? I can. Could you ever imagine 5RBs making the active 45? I can't.

Plus, RB is about the closest thing to a plug-and-play position that there is in the NFL. If there's one position where you can afford to skimp a bit on depth, it's on a 1st/2nd down running back, which is why I don't see the Pats keeping more than one backup there (especially since Vereen can run between the tackles effectively if need be). Looks to me like Blount and Bolden are competing for a roster spot.