Browns releasing Gary Barnidge

[Nehalem]

We took in Alge Crumpler when we had Gronk and Hernandez, and Crumpler was a decent blocker that season. He was named Team Captain after Week 6.

This is what BB had said about Crumpler during the 2010 season. So BB does have a history of taking a 3rd TE who is a veteran and a good blocker.


"He's very professional. Alge's really smart. He's into football. He works hard at it. He has a great presence. He's one of those guys that just seems like he always does the right thing no matter what the situation is. Whether it's in a game, in practice, in a meeting, in a walk through, whether it's a decision on the play, whether it's the way his demeanor is at that particular time, he knows when to smile, he knows when to be serious, he knows when to [step up], when to back off, when to gear it up, when to say and do the right thing. He's constantly helping his teammates and making reminders to them or telling them what to do to help them work off of him and so forth. I guess I think the best way I can put it is it seems like he always does the right thing no matter what the situation is. On or off the field, in the locker room, meetings, practice, it just seems like he always does the right thing."

Gronk and Hernandez were rookies when we had Crumpler.

Gronk and Allen are veterans. We don't need a 32 year old TE to provide leadership to them.

So really you are making an argument for why the Browns should have kept Barnidge.

 

[maineman209]

He will still be paid considerably better by another team than what BB would shell out for a #3 TE. I think just his blocking ability alone will make another team give him a reasonable deal. There are not that many consistent Y TEs out there.

And, as soon as Gronk gets injured, that #3 TE becomes the #2 TE. Last year, that was Lengel.

It seems to me that BB might be happy paying a veteran $2M-$3M who produced 85% of Bennett's 2016 receiving yardage last season with scrubs throwing him the ball. I seriously doubt that Barnidge will be paid "considerably better" than that elsewhere.

Barnidge was scheduled to make $3.3M before the Browns cut him (possibly a cap-space move). The Browns' TE depth chart now looks like this...

Njoku
Telfer
DeValve
Holtz

Meanwhile, BB paid $3.15M for Burkhead. At this point, its hard to say whether Burkhead will be the #2 RB or the #3 or even #4,

I'm not saying that Barnidge to the Pats will happen. I'm just saying that I'm not so certain that it's impossible. In any case, the player who will fill that #3TE role for the Pats in 2017 is still very much undecided, so almost any outcome is possible. The more options from which to choose, the better.

 

[maineman209]

Gronk and Hernandez were rookies when we had Crumpler.

Gronk and Allen are veterans. We don't need a 32 year old TE to provide leadership to them.

So really you are making an argument for why the Browns should have kept Barnidge.

Well, IIRC, the Browns save around $2.1M (net) off their cap by cutting Barnidge. They may think that they can bring him back at vet minimum.

The other factor to consider is that the Browns FO guys are idiots.

 

[maineman209]

Makes sense for them. Barnidge's blocking skills for their ground game and he'd probably instantly be their #2 behind Clay as a TE passing target.

 

[luuked]

And, as soon as Gronk gets injured, that #3 TE becomes the #2 TE. Last year, that was Lengel.

It seems to me that BB might be happy paying a veteran $2M-$3M who produced 85% of Bennett's 2016 receiving yardage last season with scrubs throwing him the ball. I seriously doubt that Barnidge will be paid "considerably better" than that elsewhere.

Barnidge was scheduled to make $3.3M before the Browns cut him (possibly a cap-space move). The Browns' TE depth chart now looks like this...

Njoku
Telfer
DeValve
Holtz

Meanwhile, BB paid $3.15M for Burkhead. At this point, its hard to say whether Burkhead will be the #2 RB or the #3 or even #4,

I'm not saying that Barnidge to the Pats will happen. I'm just saying that I'm not so certain that it's impossible. In any case, the player who will fill that #3TE role for the Pats in 2017 is still very much undecided, so almost any outcome is possible. The more options from which to choose, the better.

Allen is the Gronk insurance. You can't have three layers of insurance at market price. Especially, if you will most probably spend a lot of time in 11 personnel or with multiple RBs.

If you really believe what you are writing you are setting yourself up for disapointment.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Gronk seems to get hurt every year lately. Having a solid 3rd TE seems like a good plan to me. We might do less of the 2TE sets now that we have better WRs, but it would still be nice to have that in our game plan with 2 good TEs even if Gronk does get hurt. I don't know what is reasonable money to offer him, but I would like to see the Pats explore the possibility.

 

[Patsgofor4]

Gronk seems to get hurt every year lately. Having a solid 3rd TE seems like a good plan to me. We might do less of the 2TE sets now that we have better WRs, but it would still be nice to have that in our game plan with 2 good TEs even if Gronk does get hurt. I don't know what is reasonable money to offer him, but I would like to see the Pats explore the possibility.

It's not gonna happen. I can't wait for him to sign with another team, so that we can rid ourselves of another useless thread.

I am thrilled to see that the Jimmy G threads have quieted down after the draft. Even the most stubborn posters have seemingly admitted defeat on this front.

 

[maineman209]

Allen is the Gronk insurance. You can't have three layers of insurance at market price. Especially, if you will most probably spend a lot of time in 11 personnel or with multiple RBs.

If you really believe what you are writing you are setting yourself up for disapointment.

Then the obvious question is "who's the Allen insurance?"

The Pats carried 3 TEs (or more) all of last year except for one or two games just before the BYE. They acquired Lengel during the BYE, and Gronk was essentially done for the season bye the end of the game right after the BYE (Seattle, I think).

While Gronk was healthy, the offense ran plays using 2TE sets. After they were down to Bennett and Lengel, the number of those sets, and passing targets to TEs were significantly reduced. IOW, quite a few playbook options were off the table. Obviously, defenses didn't consider Lengel (or Develin) a receiving threat.

Anyway, I have no idea why I'd be "disappointed." I'm not making any definitive prediction here. I'm not saying that this WILL happen, or that WON'T happen. I'm merely discussing possibilities - using words like could, might, may, likely, unlikely, etc. - because the only thing I'm certain of is that I can't know what WILL happen.

Heck, Barnidge could have signed with the Bills while I've been typing this (interrupted for an hour by a visit from a neighbor). Won't bother me a bit. Obviously, I've already considered the possibility.

So, I really have no stake in this, one way or another. I just enjoy considering the range of possibilities and then sitting back to see what plays out.

If I'm disappointed in anything, it's that so many people seem to think I'm nuts for even considering a particular possibility - or, worse yet, WRONG! It often seems that by simply raising a possibility, I'm as married to it as if I'd made a definitive prediction and haven't considered any other possibilities at all.

Meh. A minor disappointment that I'll get over quickly. I've frown accustomed to be a person who's not really certain about much of anything living in a world of people who often appear to be certain about everything.

 

[mgteich]

If Gronk or Allan were to be injured, the offense would change and use more sets with 1 TE. The backup for one of these, on the filed, is a WR. Sure, we might still have a 3rd TE active, but that would a blocking only TE.

The open question is whether to pay for a backup who would likely be inactive on Game Day. With Gronk and Allen healthy, I would expect that there would be no more active TE, except one primarily for blocking or special teams. Often our #3 OT is also available as a blocking TE (Fleming or even Williams).

I expect us to keep Fleming and likely O'Shaughnessy. They fill more than one need on the roster, and when active on Game Day.

Then the obvious question is "who's the Allen insurance?"

The Pats carried 3 TEs (or more) all of last year except for one or two games just before the BYE. They acquired Lengel during the BYE, and Gronk was essentially done for the season bye the end of the game right after the BYE (Seattle, I think).

While Gronk was healthy, the offense ran plays using 2TE sets. After they were down to Bennett and Lengel, the number of those sets, and passing targets to TEs were significantly reduced. IOW, quite a few playbook options were off the table. Obviously, defenses didn't consider Lengel (or Develin) a receiving threat.

Anyway, I have no idea why I'd be "disappointed." I'm not making any definitive prediction here. I'm not saying that this WILL happen, or that WON'T happen. I'm merely discussing possibilities - using words like could, might, may, likely, unlikely, etc. - because the only thing I'm certain of is that I can't know what WILL happen.

Heck, Barnidge could have signed with the Bills while I've been typing this (interrupted for an hour by a visit from a neighbor). Won't bother me a bit. Obviously, I've already considered the possibility.

So, I really have no stake in this, one way or another. I just enjoy considering the range of possibilities and then sitting back to see what plays out.

If I'm disappointed in anything, it's that so many people seem to think I'm nuts for even considering a particular possibility - or, worse yet, WRONG! It often seems that by simply raising a possibility, I'm as married to it as if I'd made a definitive prediction and haven't considered any other possibilities at all.

Meh. A minor disappointment that I'll get over quickly. I've frown accustomed to be a person who's not really certain about much of anything living in a world of people who often appear to be certain about everything.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Not sure if there's a spot for him but if BB has a scheme that fits, bring'm in.

 

[maineman209]

If Gronk or Allan were to be injured, the offense would change and use more sets with 1 TE. The backup for one of these, on the filed, is a WR. Sure, we might still have a 3rd TE active, but that would a blocking only TE.

The open question is whether to pay for a backup who would likely be inactive on Game Day. With Gronk and Allen healthy, I would expect that there would be no more active TE, except one primarily for blocking or special teams. Often our #3 OT is also available as a blocking TE (Fleming or even Williams).

I expect us to keep Fleming and likely O'Shaughnessy. They fill more than one need on the roster, and when active on Game Day.

Apparently, Barnidge may be a pretty good blocker. In 2016, the only two players who had more snaps on offense were the two tackles (Barnidge had 968 snaps). Since he was targeted on only 82 of those snaps, I'd guess he was blocking on the rest. Same thing in 2015, his "big" receiving year.

So, if BB could have, for a reasonable price, a #3TE who's proven in the NFL that he can both block and catch, he'd turn that down because the guy might be inactive once in awhile?

 

[mgteich]

Apparently, Barnidge may be a pretty good blocker. In 2016, the only two players who had more snaps on offense were the two tackles (Barnidge had 968 snaps). Since he was targeted on only 82 of those snaps, I'd guess he was blocking on the rest. Same thing in 2015, his "big" receiving year.

So, if BB could have, for a reasonable price, a #3TE who's proven in the NFL that he can both block and catch, he'd turn that down because the guy might be inactive once in awhile?

Not once in awhile; almost always.

The open question is how to use the last few spots on the roster. This is always the case.

There is a strong argument to use the spots for position backups, who will have almost no reps unless there is an injury. This is the argument for having an interest in this player.

On the other hand, one can use the roster spot for a top special teamer like O'Shaughnessy who would be useful in every game.

IMHO, Belichick has shown (through his use of a 5th rounder) that the special teamer is more valuable.

 

[maineman209]

Not once in awhile; almost always.

The open question is how to use the last few spots on the roster. This is always the case.

There is a strong argument to use the spots for position backups, who will have almost no reps unless there is an injury. This is the argument for having an interest in this player.

On the other hand, one can use the roster spot for a top special teamer like O'Shaughnessy who would be useful in every game.

IMHO, Belichick has shown (through his use of a 5th rounder) that the special teamer is more valuable.

I understand your argument ...
... a #3TE who can block & catch well, but who doesn't contribute on ST
- versus -
... a #3TE who might play 6-12 offensive snaps per game as a blocker (though perhaps rarely as a receiver) and regularly contribute 18 snaps per game on ST

You're assuming that the first option will almost always be inactive (barring injury to Gronk or Allen) and the second option will always be active for ST.

Viewing the TE position in isolation from the rest of the roster, and from the offensive playbook, that may be true.

First of all, injuries (even relatively minor ones) can/do happen to WRs and RBs (and to Develin) frequently enough, so Barnidge's playing time wouldn't necessarily be limited to instances of TE injury.

Secondly, if BB put another legitimate receiving arrow in McD's quiver (assuming that Barnidge is one), thereby adding flexibility, I don't think they'd leave him on the bench all that often. And that wouldn't necessarily mean that a guy like O'Shaughnessy wouldn't make the roster or would necessarily sit on those days that Barnidge was active.

Third, 2TE sets in which both TEs are legitimate receiving threats have been a significant part of the Pats' offensive playbook for several years. Sure, if one of the top two TE's becomes unavailable, the offense can switch to a greater emphasis on RB's as passing targets and/or increase targets to WRs (which is exactly what they did for the second half of 2016 and through the playoffs).

But that still excised a significant, and valuable portion of the offensive playbook - valuable especially in light of the Pats' propensity for customizing weekly game plans around each opponent's strengths and weaknesses.

In any case these are all arguments over the possibility of including Barnidge on a hypothetical 53-man roster in September ... which has nothing whatsoever to do with my original hypothesis.

It's only May.

My original hypothesis is merely that the Pats could (could, not WILL) sign Barnidge to the 90-man off-season roster to put another, contrasting option on the menu from which BB will be building the ultimate 53-man roster.

That's it. Nothing more.

My apologies to all if that wasn't clear from the beginning.

 

[mgteich]

fair enough

To be clear, I'm fine with a dozen TE's being on the 90 man roster.

For me, the issue is the options during the season.

I agree that having 2 TE's who are receiving options has been important. HOWEVER, I disagree that this is relevant to having the 3rd TE being a serious receiving threat. For me, if one our top 2 TE's is injured, this will of course affect the team's options. Some would think that this means that the #3 TE should be much more a part of the offense as a receiving threat. I strongly disagree. If Gronk or Allen is injured, then we will have 3 or 4 WR sets much more often. This is precisely why it has been so important to improve our receiver corps.

BOTTOM LINE
It is strange for me to want to have a 3rd TE receiver on the field (or even active) instead of Hogan or Mitchell (or even Amendola). For me, if there was an injury to one our top TE's, another of our very qualified WR's would have more reps.

Yes, I am fine with signing any veteran as pre-season injury insurance. This is a reasonable use of one of our 90 roster spots.

AS AN ASIDE
Guys like O'Shaughnessy can catch the occasional pass.

I understand your argument ...
... a #3TE who can block & catch well, but who doesn't contribute on ST
- versus -
... a #3TE who might play 6-12 offensive snaps per game as a blocker (though perhaps rarely as a receiver) and regularly contribute 18 snaps per game on ST

You're assuming that the first option will almost always be inactive (barring injury to Gronk or Allen) and the second option will always be active for ST.

Viewing the TE position in isolation from the rest of the roster, and from the offensive playbook, that may be true.

First of all, injuries (even relatively minor ones) can/do happen to WRs and RBs (and to Develin) frequently enough, so Barnidge's playing time wouldn't necessarily be limited to instances of TE injury.

Secondly, if BB put another legitimate receiving arrow in McD's quiver (assuming that Barnidge is one), thereby adding flexibility, I don't think they'd leave him on the bench all that often. And that wouldn't necessarily mean that a guy like O'Shaughnessy wouldn't make the roster or would necessarily sit on those days that Barnidge was active.

Third, 2TE sets in which both TEs are legitimate receiving threats have been a significant part of the Pats' offensive playbook for several years. Sure, if one of the top two TE's becomes unavailable, the offense can switch to a greater emphasis on RB's as passing targets and/or increase targets to WRs (which is exactly what they did for the second half of 2016 and through the playoffs).

But that still excised a significant, and valuable portion of the offensive playbook - valuable especially in light of the Pats' propensity for customizing weekly game plans around each opponent's strengths and weaknesses.

In any case these are all arguments over the possibility of including Barnidge on a hypothetical 53-man roster in September ... which has nothing whatsoever to do with my original hypothesis.

It's only May.

My original hypothesis is merely that the Pats could (could, not WILL) sign Barnidge to the 90-man off-season roster to put another, contrasting option on the menu from which BB will be building the ultimate 53-man roster.

That's it. Nothing more.

My apologies to all if that wasn't clear from the beginning.

 

[maineman209]

fair enough

To be clear, I'm fine with a dozen TE's being on the 90 man roster.

For me, the issue is the options during the season.

I agree that having 2 TE's who are receiving options has been important. HOWEVER, I disagree that this is relevant to having the 3rd TE being a serious receiving threat. For me, if one our top 2 TE's is injured, this will of course affect the team's options. Some would think that this means that the #3 TE should be much more a part of the offense as a receiving threat. I strongly disagree. If Gronk or Allen is injured, then we will have 3 or 4 WR sets much more often. This is precisely why it has been so important to improve our receiver corps.

BOTTOM LINE
It is strange for me to want to have a 3rd TE receiver on the field (or even active) instead of Hogan or Mitchell (or even Amendola). For me, if there was an injury to one our top TE's, another of our very qualified WR's would have more reps.

Yes, I am fine with signing any veteran as pre-season injury insurance. This is a reasonable use of one of our 90 roster spots.

AS AN ASIDE
Guys like O'Shaughnessy can catch the occasional pass.

Sure all of the non-rookie TEs currently on the 90-man vying for a #3 TE spot have proven that they can catch an occasional pass in the NFL. In fact, they've caught 17 of them.

Combined.

Over the past two seasons.

I'm not saying that the #3 TE should or must be a legitimate receiving threat for an opposing defense to take into account. All I'm saying is, all else being equal, or nearly so, why would you not choose the guy who's a legit receiver? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that it's somehow pointless to have the #3 TE be a legit receiving threat.

 

[SalemPats]

I think adding Dwayne Allen is huge. I don't think we are the right team for Barnidge as a young developing TE is better backup for us. if we do add him for cheap i won't be disappointed

 

[mgteich]

Sure all of the non-rookie TEs currently on the 90-man vying for a #3 TE spot have proven that they can catch an occasional pass in the NFL. In fact, they've caught 17 of them.

Combined.

Over the past two seasons.

I'm not saying that the #3 TE should or must be a legitimate receiving threat for an opposing defense to take into account. All I'm saying is, all else being equal, or nearly so, why would you not choose the guy who's a legit receiver? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that it's somehow pointless to have the #3 TE be a legit receiving threat.

I think that there is a better use for a roster spot than a backup TE who is primarily a receiving threat.

If Barnidge is a better STer then O'Shaughnessy or Bolden or whoever gets the roster spot, then fine.