Roster Breakdown question

Of course this is depending on Camp and injuries but was just wondering about some opinions on the Roster Breakdown. I believe for the most part last year we went with 5 WR (Including Slater) and 6 Safeties. I would really like to see them go into next season with Edelman, Amendola, Hogan, Draft Pick, and either Martin or Washington as the WR core. Was just wondering where we are going to poach a roster spot.

QB = 2
RB = 5
WR = 6 (Including Slater)
TE = 3
OL = 9 (Another interesting battle on the interior)

DL = 10
LB = 5
CB = 5
S = 5 (Brandon King out??)

We could go back to a more traditional 5 safety look with Brandon King, who was awesome on ST's, being pushed off the roster. We could also see a 4 traditional LB look with Chung being used as the 3rd LB at times. Then again we could stick with the 4/5 WR look with Martin and Washington battling for #4 reps.

This is all depending on injuries but was just trying to find some roster spots. We are going to have some tough decisions after camp.

Since the Pats have two TEs and two RBs that could be involved heavily in the passing game I'd say the Pats only keep 4 WR (5 if you include Slater). To get there I'd say just take away the spot you have reserved for a draft pick and instead draft a different position. Let's face it, the Pats' veteran WR pickups have far outperformed all of their WR's drafted since 2003 not named Julian Edelman. Welker and Moss obviously were absolute beasts but I'm even talking about the 'other guys' too. Guys like Amendola, Gaffney, LaFell, Stallworth, 2nd stint of Branch have done far more than the likes of Chad Jackson, Aaron Dobson, Kenbrell Thompkins, Bethel Johnson, etc.

who is still eligible WR for practice squad?

If they keep Amendola they might go for one more WR spot.
Martin and Washington can both make it.

Perhaps, we should start with what we need at receiver. Do you really need more than Edelman, Amendola, Hogan and one more? I suspect not, unless we have a top draftee who isn't ready to contribute and needs to take a roster spot.

With Gronk, Bennett and Lewis, 4 WR's is plenty. I think that we had this number for much of the season.

And yes, as is often the case, we might have a WR or two on the Practice Squad. BTW, have any of these really helped us?

Completely agree with the idea of going with 4 WR with the addition of Bennett as well as Lewis an White as receiving RBs. Let Martin and Washington battle for the 4th WR.

Edelman
Amendola (if he restructures/draft pick if he doesn't)
Hogan
Martin/Washington

I think with the fact that Edelman and Gronk are injury prone. Washington, Hogan and Bennett are unknowns. I think the Patriots will go with the safety in numbers approach. 6 WRs (icluding Slater) will stick on the team. They will probably carry less LBs with a few people like Chung or Nink who can play LB if needed

Given the injury history, I don't see any way this team goes with 4 WR.

brdmaverick said:

I'd say just take away the spot you have reserved for a draft pick and instead draft a different position. Let's face it, the Pats' veteran WR pickups have far outperformed all of their WR's drafted since 2003 not named Julian Edelman. Welker and Moss obviously were absolute beasts but I'm even talking about the 'other guys' too. Guys like Amendola, Gaffney, LaFell, Stallworth, 2nd stint of Branch have done far more than the likes of Chad Jackson, Aaron Dobson, Kenbrell Thompkins, Bethel Johnson, etc.

Click to expand...

You make a ton of sense, although I also think an argument could be made for just continuing to throw darts and hope that someone pans out just the same--especially when we'll almost certainly be taking some chances in the draft just due to the sheer volume of picks. Eventually, they're going to develop some youth and speed at the position (crosses fingers).

On another note, if that was really you who hauled in that pass from Edelman during the Dunkin Donuts event, we'd be more than happy to add you to the list of those considered. You went up and snagged that sum*****. Very impressive.

Deus Irae said:

Given the injury history, I don't see any way this team goes with 4 WR.

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree, particularly until I see #11 playing at full speed in TC.

I brought up the idea of only keeping 4 yesterday, but it doesn't seem to be appropriate in this instance. While there's still an argument to be made, guys like Lewis, Gronk, Edelman, and Amendola are all prone to getting dinged up.

While penciling in Nate Washington is a popular thought at the moment, he's certainly no sure thing to make the team. I still think they'll both draft and bring in another FA--even if it's a humdrum type of signing.

mgteich said:

Perhaps, we should start with what we need at receiver. Do you really need more than Edelman, Amendola, Hogan and one more? I suspect not, unless we have a top draftee who isn't ready to contribute and needs to take a roster spot.

With Gronk, Bennett and Lewis, 4 WR's is plenty. I think that we had this number for much of the season.

And yes, as is often the case, we might have a WR or two on the Practice Squad. BTW, have any of these really helped us?

Click to expand...

I touched on this thought last evening, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that they definitely need to have some type of developmental prospect on the team.

I don't know if that would be a future draft pick (I'm guessing so), another year for a guy like Martin who showed some progress at times, or even the dreaded decision to stick with Dobson one final year, but I'm guessing that they'll carry 5 WRs. It's difficult to see a scenario where we aren't trying to develop someone, unless that "someone" can sneak onto the PS, as you say. While that sounds great, the odds may be slim. After all, like you've said, those players haven't exactly produced much anyways.

It would be surprising to see the Pats draft heavily at WR concidering the free agent weapon pickups of Hogan, Washington and Bennett (as TE) but a couple late round guys to end up on the practice squad or IR might happen. Amendola getting released or traded might make sense however which could shake things up and allow for some new blood.

At this point in time, I look at players & positions as a 90-man depth chart rather than as a 53-man roster. We all know unfortunately that injuries will reduce these numbers as TC progresses, so I don't worry about such things as, for example, keeping Martin or Washington.

The WR depth chart therefore looks to me like:
Edelman
Amendola
Hogan
Martin
Washington
Dropson

DeAndre Carter & Chris Harper are merely tackling dummies, easily discarded into the dustbin of history when TC ends.

Matty Slater is not now, never was, and should not ever be considered a WR. If forced to include him in a postion group other than STs, I have always placed him with the DBs, Safeties in particular. I know that he completely sucks on both offense & defense, but he's better at tackling the man with the ball in his hands than he is when he is the man with the ball in his hands, so that says Defense to me.

I would be somewhat surprised if Bill didn't use at least one of his currently 11 picks on a WR; my depth chart will then be adjusted accordingly.

supafly said:

On another note, if that was really you who hauled in that pass from Edelman during the Dunkin Donuts event, we'd be more than happy to add you to the list of those considered. You went up and snagged that sum*****. Very impressive.

Click to expand...

Ha ha, yes, that was me. Wow, I'm surprised you remembered that. I figured that's old news to everyone but myself (where it will forever be a great memory for me).

Deus Irae said:

Given the injury history, I don't see any way this team goes with 4 WR.

Click to expand...

Now I can buy this as a reasonable argument for going for 5. In which case I still say lose the rookie and add Nate Washington to the OP's prediction.

hornetfb85 said:

QB = 2
RB = 5
WR = 6 (Including Slater)
TE = 3
OL = 9

DL = 10
LB = 5
CB = 5
S = 5 (including Ebner)

Click to expand...

This is what I usually start with. However, there are 2 approaches that might be more useful at this point.

First, we could simply project a 60 man roster at this point, recognizing that injuries and Belichick's penchant for lots of STer's could sway the Game One roster.

Alternatively, we could project a 45 man roster, of key position, recognizing that Belichick might choose the final 8 at almost any position.
======================
ALTERNATIVE TWO

OFFENSE (20)
QB 2
RB/FB 4
WR 4
TE 2
OL 8

DEFENSE (20)
DE 4
DT 4
LB 4
CB 4
S 4

SPECIAL TEAMS (5)
SPEC 3
ST 2

As we know, Belichick might choose to have 7 safeties on the squad. IMHO, we can reasonably argue about the importance of the final 8 positions.

supafly said:

On another note, if that was really you who hauled in that pass from Edelman during the Dunkin Donuts event, we'd be more than happy to add you to the list of those considered. You went up and snagged that sum*****. Very impressive.

Click to expand...

I can offer this up as proof.

I have a youtube account under the same username (brdmaverick). You'll see my ice bucket video challenge (link below).

YouTube

You should be able to see that it's the same person in both videos (Edelman link attached too).



Sorry, didn't mean to highjack the thread, I just can't help talking about my greatest athletic achievement of my life (sad, I know) when given the opportunity.

brdmaverick said:

I can offer this up as proof.

I have a youtube account under the same username (brdmaverick). You'll see my ice bucket video challenge (link below).

YouTube

You should be able to see that it's the same person in both videos (Edelman link attached too).



Sorry, didn't mean to highjack the thread, I just can't help talking about my greatest athletic achievement of my life (sad, I know) when given the opportunity.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing it.

By the way, I certainly didn't mean to sound like I was questioning you, as I already knew that it was you. I was simply trying to respect your privacy on some level while giving you props for your awesome memory!

My choice of wording was poor in that regard.