2018 Free Agency -- Part 2

[Marqui]

Hope they sign Hageman.

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

The story with hageman in his career has been all the physical attributes but doesn't show it on the field. He's very athletic. Reminds me of a certain DT we have already who has shown glimpses but hasn't lived up to the hype.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Hageman would give us some serious depth along the d-line

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Dude, Tom Brady sued the NFL.

. . . and that's why we should have kept Jimmy!

 

[supafly]

I’m curious on how much it would cost to sign Reid. How much is he going after by suing the nfl? It seems a vet min deal may not be in his best interest if he’s going for millions in a lawsuit. You would thinking signing anywhere would hurt his case.

I could be wrong, but I thought that he made some pretty straightforward statements about what he expects his compensation to be, and I want to say that he scoffed at the idea of taking anything below 5-6m or so.

Of course, that was right around the time when the initial wave of FA was slowing down and he was beginning to get mentioned in some articles. He may have been forced to change his bottom line stance due to a soft market for his services.

Personally, I think all of the talk about Reid is for nothing. It’s quite possible that Belichick sees little reason to pay much for a 4th safety who isn’t going to see more than 12-15 snaps per game, and that’s assuming that he’s even given much thought to replacing Richards, which we all want, but doesn’t mean that Belichick feels the same. Of course, there is the controversial political issue and pending lawsuit that seems to be hurting him, too, but I’m wondering if it’s even about any of that, here.

I’d love to see the S4 spot upgraded, so as a fan I’d be all for it. At the same time, I’m skeptical as to whether or not Reid has even been considered, that’s all.

 

[maineman209]

... a 4th safety who isn’t going to see more than 12-15 snaps per game ...

If the 4th safety is someone like Reid (or Vacarro), why is this necessarily true?

2017 snaps/game & percentages:

D-Mac = 64/gm ... 97% ... +7 ST snaps/gm
Chung = 58/gm ... 88% ... +9 ST snaps/gm
Harmon = 44/gm ... 66% ... +1 ST snap/gm
Richards = 17/gm ... 26% ... + 19 ST snaps/gm

Is there some reason that these snaps wouldn't be distributed differently?

 

[maineman209]

More on Hageman's domestic violence case and how the Falcons handled things:

Ra’Shede Hageman’s suspension and release, explained

 

[supafly]

If the 4th safety is someone like Reid (or Vacarro), why is this necessarily true?

2017 snaps/game & percentages:

D-Mac = 64/gm ... 97% ... +7 ST snaps/gm
Chung = 58/gm ... 88% ... +9 ST snaps/gm
Harmon = 44/gm ... 66% ... +1 ST snap/gm
Richards = 17/gm ... 26% ... + 19 ST snaps/gm

Is there some reason that these snaps wouldn't be distributed differently?

Those snaps shouldn’t be distributed differently, at least in my opinion. DMac and Chung have their roles carved out and the team dedicated good money to them. Chung has Belichick’s respect for playing a certain role, and for being an iron man on the field. McCourty is one of the better center fielders in the game and is a leader of the secondary. That leaves Harmon, who, once again just received a big commitment from the team and plays 2/3 of the snaps.

I think that Belichick would’ve approached the situation a bit differently in FA and the draft if he had major concerns about the safety group. I also think that he’s full speed ahead with using Richards on STs and as a 4th safety. We’d all like to see an upgrade for our 4th safety, mostly due to the fact that they often use 3 and the injury concerns that come with that, but Belichick rarely fields the kind of all star lineups that the fans want to see, and Im skeptical as to whether he’d actually spend the kind of money that a guy like Eric Reid is supposedly looking for.

 

[mrscruff]

Draft binkie. Very elusive at the college level. Would not mind if he was bought into camp.

 

[maineman209]

Draft binkie. Very elusive at the college level. Would not mind if he was bought into camp.

 

[maineman209]

Draft binkie. Very elusive at the college level. Would not mind if he was bought into camp.

Oops! Sorry! I didn't intend to hit reply to you with my last post.

 

[maineman209]

RBs dropping like flies today.

 

[maineman209]

A spot appears to have suddenly opened for an RB.

I think this is the first ACL tear of 2018. And it's only mid-May. Perhaps we should start a tracking thread?

 

[mgteich]

Let's see. We have one the best sets of 3 safeties in the NFL. Everyone is experienced and plays their role very, very well. Why would I take on of them off the field for another, absent injury?

If the 4th safety is someone like Reid (or Vacarro), why is this necessarily true?

2017 snaps/game & percentages:

D-Mac = 64/gm ... 97% ... +7 ST snaps/gm
Chung = 58/gm ... 88% ... +9 ST snaps/gm
Harmon = 44/gm ... 66% ... +1 ST snap/gm
Richards = 17/gm ... 26% ... + 19 ST snaps/gm

Is there some reason that these snaps wouldn't be distributed differently?

 

[maineman209]

Let's see. We have one the best sets of 3 safeties in the NFL. Everyone is experienced and plays their role very, very well. Why would I take on of them off the field for another, absent injury?

1) The top two - D-Mac & Chung - both turn 31 during Camp.
- Being able to rotate in another accomplished veteran safety (for more snaps than Richards has gotten) may help keep everyone fresher through the end of the season and the playoffs.
- It may even help D-Mac and Chung maintain their level of play through the ends of their respective contracts (2019 & 2020, respectively).
- If said veteran safety is (e.g.) one of Reid, Vaccaro or Boston, they're all 4-5 years younger than D-Mac/Chung. Having one of them on the roster as a regular participant may help extend a base of veteran continuity at the safety position beyond the end of D-Mac's and Chung's careers.

2) All of the top three were on the field together for at least 66% of the defensive snaps.
- The 3-safety "nickel" variation of the Saban-Belichick "pattern-matching" coverage scheme was also used for a majority of the D-snaps in 2016 and in the 2014 SB v. the Falcons (the Falcons also used this scheme). This package/scheme appears to me to have become a crucial strategic piece of the Pats' defense.
- Having an accomplished veteran who is more involved on a regular basis than Richards has been may serve to ensure the continued availability of this coverage scheme through the regular season and the playoffs in the event of a significant injury to one of the other three.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Pats should add a veteran FA safety and incorporate him in this way, and I'm certainly not predicting that they will do this. I'm merely pointing out that the opportunity exists and extrapolating a potential rationale for taking advantage of the opportunity.

 

[mgteich]

To re-phrase some what you have said.

1) We use our 3 safeties together 66% of the time.

THEREFORE
A) we need a backup who can play, an upgrade to Richards, and
B) "Having an accomplished veteran who is more involved on a regular basis than Richards has been may serve to ensure the continued availability of this coverage scheme through the regular season and the playoffs in the event of a significant injury to one of the other three."

I agree with "A". Yes, we need backups.

I disagree with "B". Absent injuries, backups do NOT need to be involved in the defense, any more than the backup center needs to be involved.

1) The top two - D-Mac & Chung - both turn 31 during Camp.
- Being able to rotate in another accomplished veteran safety (for more snaps than Richards has gotten) may help keep everyone fresher through the end of the season and the playoffs.
- It may even help D-Mac and Chung maintain their level of play through the ends of their respective contracts (2019 & 2020, respectively).
- If said veteran safety is (e.g.) one of Reid, Vaccaro or Boston, they're all 4-5 years younger than D-Mac/Chung. Having one of them on the roster as a regular participant may help extend a base of veteran continuity at the safety position beyond the end of D-Mac's and Chung's careers.

2) All of the top three were on the field together for at least 66% of the defensive snaps.
- The 3-safety "nickel" variation of the Saban-Belichick "pattern-matching" coverage scheme was also used for a majority of the D-snaps in 2016 and in the 2014 SB v. the Falcons (the Falcons also used this scheme). This package/scheme appears to me to have become a crucial strategic piece of the Pats' defense.
- Having an accomplished veteran who is more involved on a regular basis than Richards has been may serve to ensure the continued availability of this coverage scheme through the regular season and the playoffs in the event of a significant injury to one of the other three.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Pats should add a veteran FA safety and incorporate him in this way, and I'm certainly not predicting that they will do this. I'm merely pointing out that the opportunity exists and extrapolating a potential rationale for taking advantage of the opportunity.

 

[maineman209]

Absent injuries, backups do NOT need to be involved in the defense, any more than the backup center needs to be involved.

It seems to me that the traditional distinction between"backup" and "starter" is frequently much less clear at defensive positions.

For example, in 2016, the Pats had Long, Sheard, Nink, and T. Flowers at DE. All of them played between 35-40 snaps per game active. Who was the "backup"? There were four capable "starters" and they all played more or less equally.

I don't understand why this wouldn't apply to the safety position if there were four capable starters available. Why would one of them necessarily need to sit on the bench unless/until there's an injury to one of the other three? Since the Pats often use three safeties on the field, and sometimes four, why wouldn't it be in the best interest of the team to have all four capable starters involved on a regular basis?

 

[maineman209]

 

[supafly]

I don't understand why this wouldn't apply to the safety position if there were four capable starters available. Why would one of them necessarily need to sit on the bench unless/until there's an injury to one of the other three?

Because we’re primarily a 3 safety team, where the 4th safety (in your argument—expensive—safety) only sees the field on a low percentage of snaps?

McCourty—97%
Chung—87%
Harmon—66%

And.....Richards—25%

That would be like bringing in an expensive OT who would only see the field as a 6th OL used as an extra TE in certain run heavy formations. We’d all love to see it, but does Belichick feel that it’s a good allocation of resources? That’s where the skepticism kicks in.

For the record, I’d like to see the 4th safety position improved upon, but I’m doubting the idea that Belichick is going to want to spend much of anything doing it, and barring injury, for good reason. Of course, having that injury protection would be great, but it may be a bit unrealistic.

 

[maineman209]

Because we’re primarily a 3 safety team, where the 4th safety (in your argument—expensive—safety) only sees the field on a low percentage of snaps?

McCourty—97%
Chung—87%
Harmon—66%

And.....Richards—25%

That would be like bringing in an expensive OT who would only see the field as a 6th OL used as an extra TE in certain run heavy formations. We’d all love to see it, but does Belichick feel that it’s a good allocation of resources? That’s where the skepticism kicks in.

For the record, I’d like to see the 4th safety position improved upon, but I’m doubting the idea that Belichick is going to want to spend much of anything doing it, and barring injury, for good reason. Of course, having that injury protection would be great, but it may be a bit unrealistic.

I never said "expensive". I said "capable starter". And I'm not sure what YOU mean by "expensive", of course.

Bottom line is that I'm not making myself clear.

IF the Pats signed a veteran safety who is capable of starting (assuming an affordable price), why would they use him for only 25% of the snaps?

The four active safeties played over 2900 snaps combined in 2017 ...
- D-Mac = 1029
- Chung = 928
- Harmon = 702
- Richards = 272

Why wouldn't they even that out a bit closer to 725 snaps each? If you've got the guy, why not use him in a rotation with the others, like the Pats did with the four "starter" DEs they had in 2016?