Is It Time For Edelman To Go?

[shmessy]

Well that isn't the choice, but if it were, I'd definitely take the FB.

To each his own.

 

[Ring 6]

Underwood and Ochocinco were practically useless last season. Last season, Edelman was more valuable than Underwood and Ochocinco combined.

That opinion further illustrates the point that a FB would make the offense better.

 

[ATippett56]

That opinion further illustrates the point that a FB would make the offense better.

Considering the New England Patriots base offensive set is two wide receivers, two tight ends, one halfback; your opinion does not make much sense.

 

[ATippett56]

To each his own.

Where's all this hate for Edelman derive from?

 

[PrairiePat]

Keep Edelman. Fiery guy, great punt returner, decent slot receiver, backup defensive back, decent special teamer. The guy fills many roles and is pretty good at all of them.

 

[shmessy]

Where's all this hate for Edelman derive from?

Damned if I know.

The OP says he wanted to stimulate conversation.

 

[Ring 6]

Considering the New England Patriots base offensive set is two wide receivers, two tight ends, one halfback; your opinion does not make much sense.

Let me help you out, but it requires more than 1 step thinking.
1 step thinking = Patriots base offense is 2 TE 2 WR 1 RB so a FB is useless
Deeper thinking says:
We used a FB and since we didn't have a real one were forced to play an OL there. The amount of snaps a FB was used was probably as many as more as the number of snaps Edleman played, or 85 played or Underwood played.
You stated that Underwood and 85 were PRACTICALLY USELESS, then a real FB would have been more useful and made the offense better.
See you actually said that yourself without knowing it.

 

[mgteich]

There is also no guarantee that we will a carry 3 TE's on the 53. Last year, after the draft, we thought that 3 or even 4.

There is also no guarantee that we will carry 3 QB's on the 53 man roster.

ANALYSIS OF THE RUNNINGBACK/FULLBACK SITUATION
1) We will carry 4-5 rb/fb.
2) Ridley, Vareen and Woodhead are locks unless there are trades.
3) The 4th back could be a veteran backup or fullback. The alternative is a trade for a top shelf back.
4) The 5th back is totally an option, as is a 3rd QB and a 3rd TE (and a 9th OL for that matter).

The New England Patriots offense has scored over 500 points in the last two seasons without a prime time fullback. There is no guarantee that either fullback will on the 53 man roster come September.

 

[Ring 6]

Where's all this hate for Edelman derive from?

There is no hate, just an honest evaluation of the player.

 

[mgteich]

Yup!

I think that Edelman has been one of the best respected players we have on the team. IMHO, and dislike for Edelman is totally unreasonable.

Damned if I know.

The OP says he wanted to stimulate conversation.

 

[ATippett56]

Deeper thinking says:
We used a FB and since we didn't have a real one were forced to play an OL there. The amount of snaps a FB was used was probably as many as more as the number of snaps Edleman played, or 85 played or Underwood played.
You stated that Underwood and 85 were PRACTICALLY USELESS, then a real FB would have been more useful and made the offense better.
See you actually said that yourself without knowing it.

Tight end Daniels Fells could be used as a fullback in the two to three plays a game where a fullback is required.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I have a hard time believing Gonzalez is going to have a significantly better camp than Edelman. Julian is what he is, a solid depth receiver that can contribute on special teams. If there is a resonating feeling that he never hit his potential I think we can turn the finger around and point it at ourselves for letting a couple good games dictate what we think he should be doing on a weekly basis.

There are a lot worse ways to use a roster spot and I imagine him making the 53 next year.

I don't think Gonzalez is the guy in competition with him at this point. I think Gonzalez would have to make the team as a 3-4 WR, and if he is 5th or 6th then he will be in trouble because of versatility, and anyone hoping to beat out Edelman will have to beat him out in terms of versatility, and that won't be easy. I find it hard to imagine Edelman not being good enough to be on the back 8 of the roster, and if it happens the Belichick must have built himself a really good team all the way through.

 

[Ring 6]

Yup!

I think that Edelman has been one of the best respected players we have on the team. IMHO, and dislike for Edelman is totally unreasonable.

Where is their 'dislike' for Edelman?
I am the most vocal that I think he will have a hard time making the team, but that is based upon:
-Extremely low production on offense
-Me placing little value on his emergency fill in at DB having any bearing on his future, because he won't play there again except in an emergency
-Not considering a punt returner who doesnt stand out in any other special teams roles a lock to make the team

Not dislike,

 

[Ring 6]

Tight end Daniels Fells could be used as a fullback in the two to three plays a game where a fullback is required.

But we would be a better team if we used a real FB.
There is no reason to believe that if we had a real FB we wouldn't use him more and improve the running game. Again, more than 1 step thinking.

 

[Ring 6]

Tight end Daniels Fells could be used as a fullback in the two to three plays a game where a fullback is required.

What is your explanation for why BB is signing FBs?

 

[ATippett56]

There is also no guarantee that we will a carry 3 TE's on the 53.

Why sign Daniel Fells to a three year contract?

Last year, after the draft, we thought that 3 or even 4.

What's done is done. Looking forward, not backwards.

There is also no guarantee that we will carry 3 QB's on the 53 man roster.

If the New England Patriots carry only two quarterbacks on the roster (Brady, Mallett), Edelman is the only emergency quarterback left on the roster.

ANALYSIS OF THE RUNNINGBACK/FULLBACK SITUATION
1) We will carry 4-5 rb/fb.
2) Ridley, Vareen and Woodhead are locks unless there are trades.
3) The 4th back could be a veteran backup or fullback. The alternative is a trade for a top shelf back.
4) The 5th back is totally an option, as is a 3rd QB and a 3rd TE (and a 9th OL for that matter).

Five running backs (halfbacks/fullbacks) seem like overkill on the 53 man roster. One running back can be kept on the practice squad.

 

[ATippett56]

What is your explanation for why BB is signing FBs?

Training camp fodder.

 

[Ring 6]

Training camp fodder.

2 year contract for training camp fodder?
Singing 2 starting FBs for training camp fodder?
Bringing players to camp at a position you have no intention of using?

Just saying you were wrong would make you look a lot better than pretending you have a reasonable argument.

 

[ATippett56]

2 year contract for training camp fodder?
Singing 2 starting FBs for training camp fodder?
Bringing players to camp at a position you have no intention of using?

Just saying you were wrong would make you look a lot better than pretending you have a reasonable argument.

Spencer Larsen - New England Patriots - 2012 Player Profile - Rotoworld.com

The Pats have only rarely utilized a fullback the past two seasons, so Larsen's primary impact will likely come on special teams, if not a return to linebacker.

 

[Ring 6]

Spencer Larsen - New England Patriots - 2012 Player Profile - Rotoworld.com

You think you are strengthening your argument by quoting ROTOWORLD?