How about 5 RB's AND 4 TE's?

[mgteich]

Now that we hopefully have only 2 quarterbacks, we have an additional roster spot.

OFFENSE (25)
2 QB
6 WR
5 RB (could include fullback)
4 TE
8 OL

 

[supafly]

I wouldn't be too hot on the idea of only keeping 3 TE's. Either that or it isn't pointing in too good of a direction regarding Gronk's ability to stay off of the in season PUP list. Either scenario sucks in my opinion.

I also wouldn't assume that we're only keeping 2 QB's either, as much as the popular opinion here may sway you to believe. We have no idea about Belichick's intentions for Tebow.

They may include some tutelage from Brady, participation in a season's worth of practices (with the scout team QB even), and the full length "guidance" of the entire team until the end. I'd have a hard time believing that Belichick expected that much of a difference in such a short amount of time myself. Then again I still have a hard time believing that he even brought him in to begin with.

 

[ATippett56]

Now that we hopefully have only 2 quarterbacks, we have an additional roster spot.

OFFENSE (25)
2 QB
6 WR
5 RB (could include fullback)
4 TE
8 OL

My ideal scenario, barring future preseason injuries of course.

Offense - Practice Squad
FB/HB - 1
WR - 1
OL - 2

 

[patsfaninpa]

I've been saying this all week. The only question I have would be this. Do you want Gronk as the 4th TE or on the PUP? Misses 6 games if on PUP. May only miss a couple if on 53. If Gronk is on the 53. Ballard or Hooman the 4th? Let's end this Tebow non-sense now. He's not a NFL qb. CFL should be his port of call.

 

[captain stone]

My ideal scenario, barring future preseason injuries of course.

Offense - Practice Squad
FB/HB - 1
WR - 1
OL - 2

I prefer 9 OLmen on my 53, including 4 OTs, but as of today there aren't 9 OLmen worth keeping
(thanks Bill), so maybe 8 on the 53 + 2 on the PS is the way to go.

And I still feel that it's redundant to keep both Bolden & Blount, especially since neither one
can block worth a damn.

As for keeping/not keeping Gronk on the PUP, I would rather keep him on it, but if Bill & the docs
truly, honestly believe that he will be 100% by week 4 @ Atlanta, then by all means remove him.

 

[RayClay]

Now that we hopefully have only 2 quarterbacks, we have an additional roster spot.

OFFENSE (25)
2 QB
6 WR
5 RB (could include fullback)
4 TE
8 OL

The 4th TE is the fullback. If we continue to be a tight end based offense (possibly not) there isn't really a role for a full time FB.

 

[mgteich]

I'm fine with choosing between Hooman and Develin for the h-back/fullback role.

Also, if we have a TE based offense, we will have 3 active TE's. We need a backup in case of injury.
I am not ready to cut any of Gronkowski, Sudfeld, Ballard or Fells. I think it unlikely that they will all be available at the same time. In any case, backup TE is more valuable than most end of the roster spots.

The 4th TE is the fullback. If we continue to be a tight end based offense (possibly not) there isn't really a role for a full time FB.

 

[Brady6]

Now that we hopefully have only 2 quarterbacks, we have an additional roster spot.

OFFENSE (25)
2 QB
6 WR
5 RB (could include fullback)
4 TE
8 OL

In my opinion considering Washington a RB is not that much different than calling Slater a WR, in 2 preseason games I have not seen him lineup at RB at all, Bolden was being used in the backfield with Vereen on 3rd and long situation which is another indication of how the coaches view him in terms of a receiver.

I also feel last season our running game suffered after the Bolden injury and ensuing suspension, so it would be a terrible idea for us to put ourselves in that same position again this season, especially if we intend to make the running game a bigger part of the offense. The other thing that comes to mind is Woodhead and Vereen combined for 138 times last season, I do not expect those carries all to just go to Vereen.

 

[mgteich]

Don't you think that Vereen's number of carries will increase? Certainly, Blount will get significant carries.

If Washington is useless a RB, then yes, Bolden will get significant reps. If not, then Bolden will be the emergency backup, much like Edelman.

As long as we don't insist on a 3rd QB, I think that 5 running backs is fine. For me, I've been disappointed that Washington has been used as a running back. Perhaps, it is imply viewed that he doesn't need the reps. It would be interesting to see how many reps he gets during practice sessions.

In my opinion considering Washington a RB is not that much different than calling Slater a WR, in 2 preseason games I have not seen him lineup at RB at all, Bolden was being used in the backfield with Vereen on 3rd and long situation which is another indication of how the coaches view him in terms of a receiver.

I also feel last season our running game suffered after the Bolden injury and ensuing suspension, so it would be a terrible idea for us to put ourselves in that same position again this season, especially if we intend to make the running game a bigger part of the offense. The other thing that comes to mind is Woodhead and Vereen combined for 138 times last season, I do not expect those carries all to just go to Vereen.

 

[mgteich]

So, we are down to deciding between a 5th RB and a 3rd QB?

I wouldn't be too hot on the idea of only keeping 3 TE's. Either that or it isn't pointing in too good of a direction regarding Gronk's ability to stay off of the in season PUP list. Either scenario sucks in my opinion.

I also wouldn't assume that we're only keeping 2 QB's either, as much as the popular opinion here may sway you to believe. We have no idea about Belichick's intentions for Tebow.

They may include some tutelage from Brady, participation in a season's worth of practices (with the scout team QB even), and the full length "guidance" of the entire team until the end. I'd have a hard time believing that Belichick expected that much of a difference in such a short amount of time myself. Then again I still have a hard time believing that he even brought him in to begin with.

 

[supafly]

So, we are down to deciding between a 5th RB and a 3rd QB?

I wouldn't have much of an opinion myself, mg.

It could be any number of battles.

A 5th RB? A 4th or 5th TE? A 3rd QB? A 9th OL? Howabout even only having 5 WR's? There are a ton of options, and these are only on offense.

 

[Brady6]

Don't you think that Vereen's number of carries will increase? Certainly, Blount will get significant carries.

If Washington is useless a RB, then yes, Bolden will get significant reps. If not, then Bolden will be the emergency backup, much like Edelman.

As long as we don't insist on a 3rd QB, I think that 5 running backs is fine. For me, I've been disappointed that Washington has been used as a running back. Perhaps, it is imply viewed that he doesn't need the reps. It would be interesting to see how many reps he gets during practice sessions.

MG I actually broke down my projected RB carries in your other thread on this subject, I do think Vereen’s will increase however not significantly (his touches will increase significantly through receptions) and I do expect Blount to receiver 6-8 carries per game on a consistent basis, maybe even as many as 10 per game.

 

[Brady6]

I wouldn't have much of an opinion myself, mg.

It could be any number of battles.

A 5th RB? A 4th or 5th TE? A 3rd QB? A 9th OL? Howabout even only having 5 WR's? There are a ton of options, and these are only on offense.

I agree that it is not as cut and dry as a 3rd QB or 5th RB, I honestly believe keeping 5 RB (if you intend to keep Washington) is a forgone conclusion.

AGE ATT YDS YDS/ATT TD REC YDS/REC TD
Ridley 24 13 110 8.5 1
Blount 26 14 111 7.9 2 1 12 0
Vereen 24 7 41 5.9 0 6 64 1
Bolden 23 10 52 5.2 0 1 17 0

It is not like Bolden or Blount have done anything in training camp to be undeserving of a roster spot, and I see no reason for us to let any productive players under the age of 26 years old go, it will be something that comes back to bite us in the ass if we do.

 

[supafly]

I agree that it is not as cut and dry as a 3rd QB or 5th RB, I honestly believe keeping 5 RB (if you intend to keep Washington) is a forgone conclusion.

AGE ATT YDS YDS/ATT TD REC YDS/REC TD
Ridley 24 13 110 8.5 1
Blount 26 14 111 7.9 2 1 12 0
Vereen 24 7 41 5.9 0 6 64 1
Bolden 23 10 52 5.2 0 1 17 0

It is not like Bolden or Blount have done anything in training camp to be undeserving of a roster spot, and I see no reason for us to let any productive players under the age of 26 years old go, it will be something that comes back to bite us in the ass if we do.

Discussing the roster is always at a high point this time of the year, and mgteich always brings up some great topics, but it's still way too early to try and figure everything out in my opinion. We're still another 7-10 days away from knowing enough to have much of an opinion, or at least that's how I see it anyway.

I think most of us would see 4 TEs and 4-5 RBs, but the number of Offensive lineman, Wide receivers, and even QB's remains up in the air--although others will see it differently.

 

[ATippett56]

It could be any number of battles.

A 5th RB? A 4th or 5th TE? A 3rd QB? A 9th OL?

3rd QB - No thanks, I've already seen enough.

9th OL - I have a tough time naming the 8th OL right now.

 

[Brady6]

Discussing the roster is always at a high point this time of the year, and mgteich always brings up some great topics, but it's still way too early to try and figure everything out in my opinion. We're still another 7-10 days away from knowing enough to have much of an opinion, or at least that's how I see it anyway.

I think most of us would see 4 TEs and 4-5 RBs, but the number of Offensive lineman, Wide receivers, and even QB's remains up in the air--although others will see it differently.

MG is an animal today; he is putting us all to work

I see no reason to keep 3 quarterbacks, the only reason you’d keep Tebow is if you thought that another team would sign him if he was released, I do not see that happening due to the fact he received no interest in when he was on the market before camp and everything he has done here has just diminished his value, I say let him go on the 31st and sign him to a futures contract in Dec/Jan and work with him throughout the winter and revisit that situation in next year. There is nothing to gain form having Tebow on the 53 man roster in 2013 and if you ask me he will be fully available when the futures contract period reopens.

In terms of the tight end position a lot will be determined by whether or not Gronkowski goes to PUP, if he does then you’d be able to keep Fells, Ballard, Sudfeld, and Hooman; if he ends up on the 53 man roster one of them has to go and I’d probably send Hooman packing, I’m not high on Fells but he does block well, and is a smooth receiver who can play the Y or the joker role so he would have the edge over Hooman.

The running back position as I already said in my prior post I would keep 5, and if I could not find room for all 5 I would let Washington go, I know he is a very good kick returner but he would have to do a lot with those kicks to constitute holding a roster spot for the sole purpose of returning them, we average 2.375 kick returns per game last season, and I’d hope that the improved defense could drive that number down some, so unless Washington beats out Edelman for the punt return duties or he shows some level of contribution on the offensive side of the ball, 2 touches per game by a player who has 1 kick return for a touchdown in the last 2 seasons doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

:ranger:These are just my amateur opinions so don’t let them hold to much weight, my friend..:noidea:

 

[supafly]

3rd QB - No thanks, I've already seen enough.

9th OL - I have a tough time naming the 8th OL right now.

We have no idea what Belichick's plans are for Tebow at this point. He's the person whose opinion matters, no one else. We all saw what we saw, and he looks awful; but the possibility certainly exists that Belichick has a bigger plan for him to stay here, try to develop and learn this season with a real organization.

You're also the person who claims that Gregory will definitely be cut even though he's seen the most starting reps opposite of McCourty this camp. The point is that we all have our different opinions and none of us really know.

As far as a 9th OL--it all depends on the versatility of the backups and the injury situation.

 

[supafly]

In terms of the tight end position a lot will be determined by whether or not Gronkowski goes to PUP, if he does then you’d be able to keep Fells, Ballard, Sudfeld, and Hooman; if he ends up on the 53 man roster one of them has to go and I’d probably send Hooman packing, I’m not high on Fells but he does block well, and is a smooth receiver who can play the Y or the joker role so he would have the edge over Hooman.

The only thing about placing Gronk on the PUP is that he won't even be able to practice until the beginning of the 7th week. That would be a long time to wait, meaning that he still wouldn't be able to practice for almost 3 months (approx. 10-11 weeks).

Do we really want to wait 3 months to even have him practice? That's the obvious question here I think, not necessarily "when" he'll play. Just a thought.

 

[supafly]

Just another thought re: Gronk:

I think he definitely avoids in season PUP, due to the inability to practice, but that he also misses the first 2 games too.

Let's remember that we have 2 games within the first 4-5 days of the season with that week #2 game in NY on Thursday night. That will allow us to have a mini-bye that lasts about 10 days after that 2nd game on Thursday.

That would put Gronk's actual return to playing time at approx the end of September, which seems pretty reasonable considering that would be in about 6 weeks. I'd expect him to start practicing lightly in the next 3 weeks with slight increases until he returns in the 3rd game.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: How about 5 RB's AND 4 TE's?

The only thing about placing Gronk on the PUP is that he won't even be able to practice until the beginning of the 7th week. That would be a long time to wait, meaning that he still wouldn't be able to practice for almost 3 months (approx. 10-11 weeks).

Do we really want to wait 3 months to even have him practice? That's the obvious question here I think, not necessarily "when" he'll play. Just a thought.

I wouldn't place him on PUP, I think Gronkowski playing 25% the snaps woukd provide more production than any of the other TE's playing 100%. So with that said I'd keep him active and work him into the mix slowly.