Five WR's on the 53 and 4-5 RB's

[mgteich]

We want to be more of a running team.
===============
WIDE RECEIVER

The 5th and 6th WR will get almost zero reps, as should be the case. The 3rd TE will get lots more. After all, it is difficult to get reps when one is inactive.

Personally, I've often been fine with FOUR WR's on the 53, especially if there are top receiving TE's and RB's like Henry and Gibson (and Hasty?).

Of course, a 5th WR who was also a returner always made sense to me.

So, I see no reason for more than 5 WR on the initial roster, including Reagor who is an OK #5 for the initial 53 and PERHAPS an OK #6 if there still is the need when Bourne comes back. As an aside, I see this as giving the team additional time to decide on returners. We also have Marcus Jones and Bolden.

My only exception would be that I would be fine carrying Schuster (or even Thornton) for an extra month if Wolf wanted more time to try to work out a trade. Of course, they would be inactive.
============
RUNNING BACK
We are to INCREASE our focus on RB. Bringing in Gibson to replace Elliot is an OK step sideways, but not forward toward a better running game. But, but, I'm told that the answer is Harris. ???

IMO, a RB corps on a running team should have a starter, a 3rd down back, a change of pace to give the starter some "rest" during a game, an inactive backup, and a #5 special teamer (think Montgomery).

Stevenson (starter), Gibson (3rd down), and Hasty (special teamer) are an OK start. Harris seems to be OK as an inactive backup. I would like to see us add an aging stopgap veteran (as we did last year). Obviously, a younger back with a future is preferable, but likely not available.

Basically, I think that we can find someone who will be higher on our depth chart than Harris.

As an aside, how comfortable are you with our running team with Gibson out? We need more!

 

[rkarp1]

yeah, I too am not as high on Harris as some appear to be here.
I have also advocated for a TE like Wilcox to get a serious look based on his blocking ability. I see the Bell potential, but feel he is a good gamble for the PS.
I also am not ready to pigeonhole Gibson as a 3rd down back. he is capable of 175-225 carries given his age, size and past workload. I see him in a split role with Stevenson with a 60/40-65-35 split assuming health. Hasty certainly does not have the volume of targets that Gibson does, but with 65 career targets, he does have an 77% career catch % which is quite impressive. Gibson very impressive at 81%.
There also could be a scenario where Bell is that 5th RB/hybrid option depending on his blocking skills.
certainly Stevenson, Gibson, Hasty and Bell would give the team some impressive targets out of the backfield

 

[Triumph]

2023 - 415 Attempts 1627 Rush yards 9 TDs 3.9 Y/A with 93 1st downs.

2023 - 417 Attempts 1784 Rush yards 9 TDs 4.3 Y/A with 107 1st downs.

The top team won 4 games and their HOF HC was fired.

The bottom team won the Super Bowl.

 

[Fuzz]

Only reason to ever keep 5 RBs is if one of them is a FB. I agree that it would be good to keep 4 if possible, but not at the expense of the 6th WR. In this passing league, most teams keep at least 6, and many keep 7 (Chiefs kept 8 last year). To me, it'll come down to how much potential Milton shows in camp. If he shows something, keep 3 RBs, otherwise try to get him on the PS and keep 4 RBs.

 

[Zuma]

Kevin Harris had 2250 all-purpose yards in 3 years in college. He may be a good NFL RB given the chance and I expect him to get a chance with the new yutes movement.

 

[Brick27]

There isn’t a single roster in the NFL that will carry only 4 WRs.

 

[TheRainMaker]

They are built to run, yet have a terrible OL. Opposing defenses are going to be loading up the box and take Rham out early. It's going to be brutal for him.

 

[mgteich]

yeah, I too am not as high on Harris as some appear to be here.
I have also advocated for a TE like Wilcox to get a serious look based on his blocking ability. I see the Bell potential, but feel he is a good gamble for the PS.
I also am not ready to pigeonhole Gibson as a 3rd down back. he is capable of 175-225 carries given his age, size and past workload. I see him in a split role with Stevenson with a 60/40-65-35 split assuming health. Hasty certainly does not have the volume of targets that Gibson does, but with 65 career targets, he does have an 77% career catch % which is quite impressive. Gibson very impressive at 81%.
There also could be a scenario where Bell is that 5th RB/hybrid option depending on his blocking skills.
certainly Stevenson, Gibson, Hasty and Bell would give the team some impressive targets out of the backfield

I'm fine with a 4th TE instead of a 5th RB. Both Bell and Wilcox could contribute to the running game.

 

[mgteich]

They are built to run, yet have a terrible OL. Opposing defenses are going to loading up the box and take Rham out early. It's going to be brutal for him.

and Gibson will get lots of reps and will have lots of receptions

 

[mgteich]

Perhaps we should have a poll and some research.

How many WR's (not counting returners) do you expect to be active in most games?

How important have the 5th and 6th receiver been in the past (I might add 4th)?

 

[TheRainMaker]

and Gibson will get lots of reps and will have lots of receptions

I could see Gibson vulturing carries if he turns out to be a quicker cutter in this offense. Rham is a slow rumbling RB that needs momentum to get going.

 

[mgteich]

List of #5 and #6 receivers with more that 150 yards for the season
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 none
2022 #5 Thornton 247
2021 none
2020 none

Let's the bar to 100 yards FOR THE SEASON
------------------------------------------------
2023 #5 Reagor 135
2022 #5 Thornton 247
2021 none
2020 none

CONCLUSION
Only four WR's will get the vast majority of receiving yards. The top 7 receivers usually include a TE and two running backs.

Based on the last four years, a #5 receiver might have enough receptions to total 100 yards for the season.

 

[Toofy]

List of #5 and #6 receivers with more that 150 yards for the season
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 none
2022 #5 Thornton 247
2021 none
2020 none

Let's the bar to 100 yards FOR THE SEASON
------------------------------------------------
2023 #5 Reagor 135
2022 #5 Thornton 247
2021 none
2020 none

CONCLUSION
Only four WR's will get the vast majority of receiving yards. The top 7 receivers usually include a TE and two running backs.

Based on the last four years, a #5 receiver might have enough receptions to total 100 yards for the season.

What's the league average for 5th wide receiver. Considering we sucked in offense we are understating value of 5th wr. And amore often than not 5th wr becomes 4th or 3rd due to injuries. Case I. Point last year - Bourne and Pop.

 

[mgteich]

What's the league average for 5th wide receiver. Considering we sucked in offense we are understating value of 5th wr. And amore often than not 5th wr becomes 4th or 3rd due to injuries. Case I. Point last year - Bourne and Pop.

Let's focus.

I didn't use one year, I used 5.

Are you suggesting that we haven't had injuries in the past 4 seasons at WR? Only twice has the #5 WR had over 100 yards FOR THE SEASON.

You act as if the 4th WR is critical. The #4 WR can be important if one of the top 3 are injured. In any game, I would expect the top 6 targets to be 3 WR's, a TE and two RB's.
=============
Consider 2018. We did indeed have 5 contributing WR's. Of course, one of them was a STer/specialist, Patterson. That plan makes sense to me. This year we have the specialist plus FIVE more: Bourne, Osoborn and the three kids. I think that this is one too many, but I understand 5 on the roster plus Bourne on the PUP.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think it's way to soon to be deciding on extra players at any position. We might want 4 QBs, 5 RBs, 6 WRs, 4 TEs, Multiple kick returners due to new rules but the bottom line is we can't carry all that and it's way too early to tell which ones we think we can move to the practice squad and which ones we can't risk it for.

They were working Schooler at FS so maybe a roster spot can free up if he's also a backup safety.

 

[Wozzy]

I think it's way to soon to be deciding on extra players at any position. We might want 4 QBs, 5 RBs, 6 WRs, 4 TEs, Multiple kick returners due to new rules but the bottom line is we can't carry all that and it's way too early to tell which ones we think we can move to the practice squad and which ones we can't risk it for.

They were working Schooler at FS so maybe a roster spot can free up if he's also a backup safety.

This ^

Way too early to be determining who the end of the roster will be when even the coaches don't know at this point who the starters will be.

 

[mgteich]

I think it's way to soon to be deciding on extra players at any position. We might want 4 QBs, 5 RBs, 6 WRs, 4 TEs, Multiple kick returners due to new rules but the bottom line is we can't carry all that and it's way too early to tell which ones we think we can move to the practice squad and which ones we can't risk it for.

They were working Schooler at FS so maybe a roster spot can free up if he's also a backup safety.

I get it.

The number of players at each position is certainly not set. Certainly the "last" 3-5 roster spots could be at almost any position, and could come from the cuts of other teams.
=========
What I am exploring is exactly the tradeoffs that you point out. What is the priority order for you?

IOL 6
RB 4
QB 3
returner
RB 5
OT 4
TE 4
QB 4

 

[mgteich]

I think it's way to soon to be deciding on extra players at any position. We might want 4 QBs, 5 RBs, 6 WRs, 4 TEs, Multiple kick returners due to new rules but the bottom line is we can't carry all that and it's way too early to tell which ones we think we can move to the practice squad and which ones we can't risk it for.

They were working Schooler at FS so maybe a roster spot can free up if he's also a backup safety.

Yes, Schooler could be labeled a safety, but this would have little effect other than perhaps pleasing mediots and posters. He's not getting any reps at safety. There is no saved roster spot since Schooler does not help meet any need at free safety.

Part of training camp is to give players reps at positions they don't play. Sometimes these players are needed in an emergency or at the end of a game where the result is already determined. For example, in mini-camp Mafi was getting reps at center. I would hope that Wallace has gotten reps at RG.

 

[mgteich]

This ^

Way too early to be determining who the end of the roster will be when even the coaches don't know at this point who the starters will be.

No one is determining the end of the roster. Most likely the last couple of the 53 for Game One aren't on the team yet.

 

[signbabybrady]

I get it.

The number of players at each position is certainly not set. Certainly the "last" 3-5 roster spots could be at almost any position, and could come from the cuts of other teams.
=========
What I am exploring is exactly the tradeoffs that you point out. What is the priority order for you?

IOL 6
RB 4
QB 3
returner
RB 5
OT 4
TE 4
QB 4

For starters I would just take returner off this list. With the new rules teams could use 2 on KRs but even Still Marcus might be the best returner in the league I want him doing both KR and PR and his back up can be anyone else already on the roster too so not using an extra spot there.

Right now I would say tackle has to be the priority as it's possibly our weakest position on the team. With WR a close second.

However being the weakest means the need exists but also might mean the talent does not. I'm not carrying an extra tackle who sucks and Cutting a redundant player elsewhere who might actually be good.

Sadly I'm not sure the talent is good enough at some of these spots to really care which ones we keep. I'm probably not losing any sleep over any of them.