Is It Time For Edelman To Go?

[Deus Irae]

...Some would have Edelman as the #4 WR, the first WR off the bench.

Edelman is Welker's backup. What number you give him isn't really important. Given the current makeup of the receiving corps, the only competition for Edelman's spot would seem to be Gonzalez, and he'll probably end up on the IR after popping an ACL while tripping over a hidden egg on Easter Sunday.

Welker is a lock, along with Lloyd.

Branch, Johnson, Stallworth, Underwood and Davis should be competing for 2-3 spots on the WR list, with Gonzalez having an outside chance to stick here even if Edelman keeps his job. Slater is a special teams player who may get listed as a WR.

 

[doesntmatter1]

As a wide receiver he often pisses me off but he is one of the best punt returners in the league and that cannot be overlooked. I am extremely torn on the other receivers to keep though. For some reason I am excited about anthony gonzales and how can I actually say ocho sucks when it is hard to evaluate someone that is always on the bench.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Until we find a better punt returner, no. He's the best we have at the position currently.

 

[DaBruinz]

Is it time for Edelman to go? Have we finally addressed the areas where he was competitive? It seems that Belichick has gone out of his way to make sure that WR and CB have lots of competition. Lack of depth may be an issue at other roster positions, but it seems that we will not have lack of depth at WR or CB.

WIDE RECEIVER (5)
He is not close to being competitive as one of our 5 wide receivers. I suspect that our consensus is Welker, Lloyd, Branch, Stallworth/Gonzales and a draftee.

NICKEL BACK
We currently, we have 6 corners who are ahead of Edelman.
McCourty, Dowling, Arrington, Moore, Allen, Cole, draftee
I'd like to keep all 6, although I think it likely that a draftee will take one of the roster spots.

SPECIAL TEAMS
Our top 4 special teamers are Slater, White, Cole and Koutouvides. We may only keep three. As many have indicated, Edelman's punt return game isn't worth a roster spot. Someone else can likely do as well, or almost as well.

BOTTOM LINE
There are always injuries. The last five spots are always up for grabs. Perhaps Edelman can sneak in at the end. However, it seems unreasonable to predict that he will make the team.

HUH??? Edelman is more likely to make the team than BRANCH or Gonzalez. Not to mention that you forgot Chad Johnson, who isn't going anywhere thanks to his re-negotiating his deal. Not to mention that Edelman actually plays on special teams. And not just as a punt returner. He's out there on kick coverage units as well.

Edelman's punt return game isn't worth a roster spot? HUH?? He was tied for 12th in the league for players with more than 20 Punt returns.. He averaged 10.6 YPR He's not Patrick Peterson or Devin Hester, but not many people are..

I seem to remember you making a similar thread a couple years ago about Slater using almost exactly the same arguments. How did that work out for you?

I think that giving Cole an automatic spot on special teams and the regular roster is a fallacy. He's here on a 1 year deal with minimal SB.

 

[DaBruinz]

A better shot, yes. However, only Cole is real favorite to make the roster at this point.

Based on what?

 

[Arrington Planet]

I've never really liked him too much, and I'm concerned about the decrease (almost disappearance) of his playing time as a WR, but he's the best punt returner of the team and before thinking about letting him go we should look for another guy who can take his job (and contribute more in some other ways).

 

[supafly]

HUH??? Edelman is more likely to make the team than BRANCH or Gonzalez. Not to mention that you forgot Chad Johnson, who isn't going anywhere thanks to his re-negotiating his deal. Not to mention that Edelman actually plays on special teams. And not just as a punt returner. He's out there on kick coverage units as well.

Edelman's punt return game isn't worth a roster spot? HUH?? He was tied for 12th in the league for players with more than 20 Punt returns.. He averaged 10.6 YPR He's not Patrick Peterson or Devin Hester, but not many people are..

I seem to remember you making a similar thread a couple years ago about Slater using almost exactly the same arguments. How did that work out for you?

I think that giving Cole an automatic spot on special teams and the regular roster is a fallacy. He's here on a 1 year deal with minimal SB.

On top of that he did return kicks this yr too. It seemed as though he was probably a much better option than Woodhead at the time, but Belichick may have felt that he didn't want to risk any kind of injury, seeing as how he was being used on both sides of the ball at that point.

He did have a return average on kickoffs for 23.7 yards though when he was being used there, which certainly isn't too bad.

He's had returns on punts for TD's in both of the last 2 yrs, so I would guess that he is certainly the best option at this point in time. I think he offers play in all 3 phases of the game, and is one of those important kind of role players/backups that make up a Belichick coached team.

He's cheap, young, and versatile. I think he certainly makes the team, and it probably doesn't matter at all 'where' we all put him, although WR is certainly the most likely of positions. I don't know that I would necessarily count him towards the WR's though, as he may be in the same boat as Slater is; meaning he's obviously here for ST ability.

I can see the other side of the equation too, but in the end I think he's safe.

I would also agree that I don't know why some are assuming that Cole is actually a lock already.

 

[mgteich]

What a strange life you must lead, keeping track of the consistency special teams arguments on a message board.

1) I am a mod here. One the major aspects of this for me is the opening of threads and the the stimulating of discussion. Sometimes I push arguments when I believe them or not. Over time I may very well argue both sides of issues. Live with or not. That is your choice.

2) With regard to special teams, I have always argued for the importance of special teams, starting many, many threads on the subject. I suspect that I start more than anyone else does. It just isn't an important topic to many. Depending on the year, I have argued for keeping anywhere from "2 to 6 special-teams only players".

3) Arguing about individual players is a slightly different issue. I have often supported Slater, for many years. HOWEVER, as with all players not named Brady or Wilfork, I have discussed his value and whether he might be beaten out for his position. I might even have suggested that White might beat him out for his roster spot or Morris. We should always be evaluating players.

4) With regard to Edelman, I have posted many, many posts THIS season suggesting that he was a lock as a STer, along with Slater. I was the one that, even last week, suggested that Edelman should have a position because of his value as a punt returner.
After reading the discussion from many posters, I was convinced that I had overvalued the marginal contribution of punt returners.

I then decided to discuss to post a thread about Edelman. I don't see why what I say is a big deal for you. I'm not here to win debating points. I am here to share my views, listen to the views of others and hopefully to understand the team better.

5) Some have a different analysis than I do. They simply decide how many wide receiver spots we will have (almost always 6 including one for a STer like Slater) and then view the competition for the 6 roster spots. I suspect that half the threads in the last week has been about choosing which 6 receivers we will keep. Since this is obviously an issue of interest, I gave it a different spin.

AND JUST BY THE WAY
I strongly disagree with your position that Edelman is more likely to make this team than Branch. But then, that is my position.

You think it unreasonable to consider a top gunner and backup db like Cole to be likely to make the team because he only signed a 1-year contract. Well, I believe the same about White. Again we disagree.

I think it silly at best to think that Johnson is a lock to make the team because he has reduced his salary to $1M. I did err in neglecting to mention him. In the arithmetic of most, there are many competing for the #3, #4, and #5 wide receiver spots. Some consider Edelman a near lock. I don't.

WHAT THE EMOTION IS ALL ABOUT
Edelman has been a great, great, story. He has been a perfect utility player. He is the player we all would like to see make the team. We've had many, many binkies like Edelman over the years. They don't all retire as patriots.

Edelman has filled critical roles as an emergency WR and as an emergency DB. The answer is not necessarily to keep Edelman. Belichick answer is to get much more depth at those positions.

IMHO, THE BEST ARGUMENT FOR KEEPING EDELMAN CAME FROM DI
DI suggests that Edelman is fine backup for Welker, and perhaps the only reliable one. Perhaps backup slot receiver is indeed worth a roster spot. Of course, Gonzalez or a rookie could beat our Edelman for this roster spot, but a position has been identified, backup slot receiver.

HUH???.
I seem to remember you making a similar thread a couple years ago about Slater using almost exactly the same arguments. How did that work out for you?

I think that giving Cole an automatic spot on special teams and the regular roster is a fallacy. He's here on a 1 year deal with minimal SB.

 

[supafly]

I've never really liked him too much, and I'm concerned about the decrease (almost disappearance) of his playing time as a WR

It may coincide with the emergence of the TE's, as they are options number 2 and 3 in the offense, meaning that when you add Welker and Branch the top 4 targets are pretty much accounted for.

I think his skill set is too similar to Welker, or at least in terms of playing the slot to have battled Branch for an outside role. We all know that probably wouldn't work out too well.

In other words, there may have been a limited number of options that were available, and that may have been more of the reason for his limited reps.

Only Belichick can determine if he has enough talent to back Welker up and play ST's. I think he does, but time will tell if BB agrees or not.

 

[supafly]

2) With regard to special teams, I have always argued for the importance of special teams, starting many, many threads on the subject. I suspect that I start more than anyone else does. It just isn't an important topic to many. Depending on the year, I have argued for keeping anywhere from "2 to 6 special-teams only players".

I can certainly vouch for that, as I was on the wrong end of that debate during last season's off time. I wanted to remove one of the ST only positions for an additional contributing field player.

I won't be making that same mistake again.

 

[Fencer]

Of course, it's not just a matter of fitting onto the 53. You can't return punts if you're not active for the game ...

I agree that Edelman may make the team. He will be competing against depth players and developmental rookies for one the last 5 roster spots.
===================================
MG's CORE ROSTER

OFFENSE (21)
QB 2 Both game day active.
RB 4 All game day active, probably.
WR 4 All game day active.
OL 8 1 game day inactive.
TE 3 All game day active.

DEFENSE (21)
DL 7 Perhaps 1 game day inactive, but that could be hard with sub packages
OLB 4 Perhaps 1 game day inactive, but that could be hard
ILB 3 All game day active
CB 3 All game day active
S 3 All game day active
DB 1 All game day active

SPECIALISTS (6) All game day active, I presume
K 1
P 1
LS 1
ST 3 (the ability to be position depth is a plus in choosing these special teamers,
but the reality is that we don't want see them get non-ST reps)

THE LAST FIVE (5) Not a lot of game day actives in this group
Lots of considerations are made in choosing these last 5 spots. The roster spots are not locked into any positions. They could be used for additional depth on offense, defense or special teams. They could be used for a returner. They could be used for developmental players, especially rookies. They could be used for utility players like Edelman who can fill in lots of places.

Players 49 and 50 this year might be our 3rd QB and rookie wide receiver (our #5).
=====================================
THE BOTTOM LINE
48 players is plenty to play the game. 48 players actually provide a reasonable amount of depth. In practice, a couple of more spots might be decided before Game 1 (I suggest a 3rd QB and a rookie wide receiver for 2012). The last three spots then are used by Belichick as needed on a game by game basis.

Some would have Edelman as the #4 WR, the first WR off the bench.

 

[supafly]

There's 3 options of having him on the 46 man active roster that I can see.

1. List him as one of the 4 WR's

2. Have him as the "1 DB" that is listed aside from the 3 CB and 3 S

3. Have him as one of the 2 ST only players that would be active. This would need to be trimmed to 2 from the 3 that he suggests. This would also have to be done in conjunction with trimming another position. My suggestion would be to trim the 4 active game day RB's. There's probably not a need for 4 with the limited action from the RBBC system. 3 should be plenty to get through most games, especially if you consider the fact that we may be only keeping 4 total overall.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, it is difficult to decide which 2 of a healthy 48 core should be inactive. This depends on game plan. A "base case" might be the 7th DL and the 4th RB.

I would expect none of the final 5 players to active, unless there were injuries. But then, that is their role.

Yes, an exception would occur if one of the final 5 were our primary punt returner. If that were the case, I suppose that Edelman would be consider the #4 receiver, and a receiver would need to be inactive. Ecelman would be the #4, emergency wide receiver.

Of course, it's not just a matter of fitting onto the 53. You can't return punts if you're not active for the game ...

 

[Arrington Planet]

It may coincide with the emergence of the TE's, as they are options number 2 and 3 in the offense, meaning that when you add Welker and Branch the top 4 targets are pretty much accounted for.

Yeah, that, along with his similarities with Welker are two good points, but I still fell a little disappointed with his performances last two years. I didn't expect big numbers from him, but 1st year I thought he would have far more playing time with Welker coming back of that torn ACL and having a season similar to his first one, or even a little better, maybe alike Tate (not comparing them as a players, only in terms of production that year), and apart from that last game against Miami I almost don't remember him on the field. Even last season I expected him to do a little better, with less expectations but something about 200 yards, and he played even less than in 2010.

 

[Sciz]

Something else that I just thought of that may very indirectly impact Edelman's status on the team:

In 2009, Arrington was the best special teams player on the Pats, leading the team in ST tackles despite only playing 8 games. He's entered each of the past two seasons as the #4 CB, but then assumed the #2 role after two of the top 3 were lost to injury (2010 Bodden, 2011 Dowling), ineffectiveness (2010 Butler), or both (2011 Bodden). Because of that, he had to focus more on defense than STs. Assuming Arrington isn't starting next season (behind some combination of McCourty, Dowling, Moore, and a newcomer), is he the gunner opposite Slater on punts? I think that'd take away any chance of Cole making the roster. Kickoff coverage guys are a dime a dozen. Edelman, Woodhead, Vereen, and Ridley all did it last year, along with basically every backup LB and DB on the team and a few starters. If Cole can't win one of the gunner spots, then I don't think he's making the roster, and that opens up another spot. Same probably applies for Sergio Brown. If he isn't a gunner next year, I don't think he's on the team.

 

[Fencer]

My suggestion would be to trim the 4 active game day RB's. There's probably not a need for 4 with the limited action from the RBBC system. 3 should be plenty to get through most games, especially if you consider the fact that we may be only keeping 4 total overall.

You have a point -- especially as Edelman could also pretend to be a RB.

On the other hand -- if the 4 RBs are Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead, and a FB, which do you sit? I don't have a good answer to that.

 

[ATippett56]

Edelman will remain the 53 man roster.

Do the New England Patriots seriously need a fullback on the roster?

Why not utilize tight end Daniel Fells as a fullback in short yardage situations?

 

[supafly]

Edelman will remain the 53 man roster.

Do the New England Patriots seriously need a fullback on the roster?

Why not utilize tight end Daniel Fells as a fullback in short yardage situations?

I too, have wondered about the actual need for a true FB on the roster.

It's funny because we all clamored for it for yrs, but then when they got Polite for the stretch run last yr, it didn't seem as though they used him very much.

 

[supafly]

You have a point -- especially as Edelman could also pretend to be a RB.

On the other hand -- if the 4 RBs are Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead, and a FB, which do you sit? I don't have a good answer to that.

It is a good question, Fencer.

I would assume that they would use a specific game day plan that would obviously vary, but that 2 options may play out:

1. Sit one of Vereen/Ridley

2. Sit the FB

I'm still not quite 100% convinced that they have a true FB, or if they do that he sees much action, but those are the scenarios that could possibly play out.

 

[ATippett56]

It's funny because we all clamored for it for yrs, but then when they got Polite for the stretch run last yr, it didn't seem as though they used him very much.

Hardly at all. The New England Patriots do not utilize a fullback as part of the base offense.