Is It Time For Edelman To Go?

[ATippett56]

You think you are strengthening your argument by quoting ROTOWORLD?

Think outside the box.

 

[mgteich]

Some Roster Considerations on Offense

OFFENSE 25 (could be 24 or 26)
QB 3
RB 4
WR 5
TE 3
OL 8
ST 1
Player 25 1 most likely options include 9th OL, 5th RB, returner, utility player

==================

MY CONCLUSION

There are lots of ways that Edelman can make the team. Possibilities include,

1) one of the 5 wide receivers (as has been the case in the past)
2) ST player on offense (instead of Slater)
3) Player 25 on offense (my preference at this point is 9th OL for this roster spot)
4) 9th or 10th defensive back
5) STer on defense
6) Player 25 on defense

I was surprised at the heat of this discussion. I guess it could have been worse. I could have suggested that Chad Johnson might be an almost lock, as some have suggested.

Personally, I expect Edelman to make the team. I would be somewhat surprised if he were beaten out at all of these spots.

 

[hovis]

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,

All these posts bashing 1-step thinking, and you still cling to the circular reasoning that Edelman can never be a starting receiver because he's never been a starting receiver. Yes, Edelman only had 4 receptions last year. You can take that at face value, or, you can look at the specifics as to why. If you dig deeper you'd see he had only 8 targets. Why is that? He's buried on the depth chart under a guy whose better than him at his offensive position: slot receiver. Believe me, they would've cut him last year if all they thought he could do was return punts.

 

[Ring 6]

All these posts bashing 1-step thinking, and you still cling to the circular reasoning that Edelman can never be a starting receiver because he's never been a starting receiver. Yes, Edelman only had 4 receptions last year. You can take that at face value, or, you can look at the specifics as to why. If you dig deeper you'd see he had only 8 targets. Why is that? He's buried on the depth chart under a guy whose better than him at his offensive position: slot receiver. Believe me, they would've cut him last year if all they thought he could do was return punts.

How is it circular thinking to doubt that someone who has never earned reps as a WR could be a starting WR?
The reason he had 8 targets is exactly the reason I think his job is in trouble, because he isn't effective enough at WR to get on the field and get the ball thrown to him. Underwood and 85 were awful and he couldn't get on the field ahead of them.
As far as the excuse that there is such a position as 'backup slot WR' and that guy shoiuldn't be expected to ever get on the field in the 'starting slot receiver' didn't get hurt, but would be really good if that happened, can you give any example, ever? WRs are WRs. You aren't good as a 'slot guy' and useless if there is another 'slot guy' on the field. At least I've never seen a single player that fit that description. It really is simply an excuse.

As far as cutting him last year, we put Slater, 85, Underwood and Price on the field last year. When there are better players at your position your chance of making the team is less.
Your argument is like saying Antwaun Molden will make the team this year, becuase if all he could do was look bad on coverage he wouldn't have made it last year.

 

[Ring 6]

Think outside the box.

Think outside the box by basing my opinion on players on fantasy football writers? Really?
Interesting that your argument is we can't have a FB because last year we ran most plays without one, and you are saying think outside the box.

 

[hovis]

How is it circular thinking to doubt that someone who has never earned reps as a WR could be a starting WR?
The reason he had 8 targets is exactly the reason I think his job is in trouble, because he isn't effective enough at WR to get on the field and get the ball thrown to him. Underwood and 85 were awful and he couldn't get on the field ahead of them.
As far as the excuse that there is such a position as 'backup slot WR' and that guy shoiuldn't be expected to ever get on the field in the 'starting slot receiver' didn't get hurt, but would be really good if that happened, can you give any example, ever? WRs are WRs. You aren't good as a 'slot guy' and useless if there is another 'slot guy' on the field. At least I've never seen a single player that fit that description. It really is simply an excuse.

As far as cutting him last year, we put Slater, 85, Underwood and Price on the field last year. When there are better players at your position your chance of making the team is less.
Your argument is like saying Antwaun Molden will make the team this year, becuase if all he could do was look bad on coverage he wouldn't have made it last year.

With that logic, the Pats should be using Welker as vertical threat.

 

[Ring 6]

Some Roster Considerations on Offense

OFFENSE 25 (could be 24 or 26)
QB 3
RB 4
WR 5
TE 3
OL 8
ST 1
Player 25 1 most likely options include 9th OL, 5th RB, returner, utility player

==================

MY CONCLUSION

There are lots of ways that Edelman can make the team. Possibilities include,

1) one of the 5 wide receivers (as has been the case in the past)
2) ST player on offense (instead of Slater)
3) Player 25 on offense (my preference at this point is 9th OL for this roster spot)
4) 9th or 10th defensive back
5) STer on defense
6) Player 25 on defense

I was surprised at the heat of this discussion. I guess it could have been worse. I could have suggested that Chad Johnson might be an almost lock, as some have suggested.

Personally, I expect Edelman to make the team. I would be somewhat surprised if he were beaten out at all of these spots.

No one is saying he can't make the team.
But looking at your 6 choices, 4-6 are ruled out immediately in my opinion because he isn't making the team on defense.
As far as 1-3:
1) It is hard to envision him as one of the 5 best WRs on this roster.
2) Slater is our st MVP
3) This is his best chance, adding roster flexibility.
What we have is a guy who isn't a very good Wr, who was used as a last resort on defense, who is a good punt returner and nothing special on other special teams. Clearly there could be a spot for a guy like that but when you improve the competition at his main position, the chances of him making the team diminish.

Perhpas where we differ is that I see him being used on defense this year as a fluke due to emergency, and you appear (dont want to put words in your mouth) to think that gives him a better chance of making the team. I think it is totally irrelevant. That leaves a non-productive WR who is a good PR. That seems like rough job security to me.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

With that logic, the Pats should be using Welker as vertical threat.

Good times.

 

[Ring 6]

With that logic, the Pats should be using Welker as vertical threat.

Yeah, thats what I said. I really was saying that all WRs are interchangable, and I didn't clearly say that if he is good enough to be a good slot receiver he should be able to get on the field as a WR even with Welker around

 

[hovis]

Good times.

Haha... I knew someone would post that..but c'mon...turning a 10-yd pass into a 99-yd gain doesn't make you Randy Moss.

 

[hovis]

Yeah, thats what I said. I really was saying that all WRs are interchangable, and I didn't clearly say that if he is good enough to be a good slot receiver he should be able to get on the field as a WR even with Welker around

Look, he wasn't taking any snaps from Branch in 2011 either; and BOB at least tried to keep a deep threat / outside the numbers guy on the field much of the time. You can't have too much skillset redunancy.

 

[ATippett56]

Think outside the box by basing my opinion on players on fantasy football writers? Really?
Interesting that your argument is we can't have a FB because last year we ran most plays without one, and you are saying think outside the box.

Matt Slater, Tracy White, Julian Edelman, Spencer Larsen:

Accept special teams, embrace special teams, think special teams

 

[Sciz]

Matt Slater, Tracy White, Julian Edelman, Spencer Larsen:

Accept special teams, embrace special teams, think special teams

You forgot Tarpinian :enranged:

 

[NinjaZX6R]

You forgot Tarpinian :enranged:

I think either White or Tarp stays.

 

[ATippett56]

You forgot Tarpinian :enranged:

Koutouvides, Larsen, Tarpinian, White provide healthy competition for special teams.

 

[Sciz]

I think either White or Tarp stays.

Yeah, Tarp's definitely got less of a chance this year than he did last season. If the Pats keep 2 FBs like I think they will, then the obvious spot to cut is that extra ST ILB, since I assume Larsen can do anything on STs that an LB can do.

 

[shmessy]

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

THIS!

Lousaka Polite brought zero last season. We NEED a 3rd TE to keep Hernandez from having to do too much blocking at 235 pounds or so. With Light's possible retirement, Solder is going to actually have to play tackle this year.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Yeah, Tarp's definitely got less of a chance this year than he did last season. If the Pats keep 2 FBs like I think they will, then the obvious spot to cut is that extra ST ILB, since I assume Larsen can do anything on STs that an LB can do.

I think his age helps over White. Plus Tarp is also cheaper than white.

I am rooting for Tarp.

 

[shmessy]

How is it circular thinking to doubt that someone who has never earned reps as a WR could be a starting WR?

You must have been out of the country in 2009.

 

[mgteich]

THIRD TIGHT END
I have included the 3rd TE in both my"core" 21 man offense and in my 25 man offense (repeated below for convenience). I have always supported having a 3rd TE. That being said, the 3rd TE is one of the options for the last 4 offensive roster spots. We certainly have gone without. Last year, it was clear that we intended to carry a blocking TE. belichikc found the top one in the draft plus he found a top UDFA (a binkie for many).

THIRD QUARTERBACK
Again, this is an option. I would carry a 3rd QB. I have supported this choice in the past.

FIVE RUNNING BACKS AS OVERKILL
Again, the the 5th running back is an option, one that we have taken in the past. It seems that we almost always have injuries at this position, sometimes two or three during the season. It seems reasonable to have a backup. As of now, we have a fullback as our #4 running back. I had expected us to add a veteran backup, in case of injury. Instead we added on of then top fullbacks in the league, and gave him a 2-year contract.
==================================
BOTTOM LINE
Where do we disagree? Maybe the disagreements came before I made the "choices" to fill the offense to 25 positions. I would note that the 3rd TE and 3rd QB are both included. No fullback roster is defined, although at present the 4th RB is a fullback.

I don't know what my choice is for the last roster spot usually allocated to the offense.

As of now, MY top choice is #9 OL (it almost always is). However, if Light retires, I could easily see us going with 3 tackles: Solder, Vollmer and Cannon. Obviously, there are other possible choices (5th RB, 6th WR, 2nd STer and we could give the roster spot to the defense). This decision need not be made until the last roster cut.
=======================================
OFFENSE 25 (could be 24 or 26)
QB 3
RB 4
WR 5
TE 3
OL 8
ST 1
Player 25 (most likely options include 9th OL, 5th RB, returner, utility player)

Why sign Daniel Fells to a three year contract?

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

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