Is Patrick Chung the reason Jordan Richards is still on the team?

[mgteich]

Who backs up Chung? I would like to see Bademosi. I am as flummoxed why Richards is deemed superior to Bademosi, as well.

I see Bademosi as a backup outside corner (and top Ster), not as a backup SS/LB.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I see Bademosi as a backup outside corner (and top Ster), not as a backup SS/LB.

That's fine. That's how he is currently listed, yes. Would you have rather had Bademosi on Ertz or Richards?

 

[Kontradiction]

What? Chung was taking out Ertz the entire rime before the injury. Do you watch all of these games? I mean, WTF? He's the best Rover in the league.

Only when Chung left did Ertz start to become a real problem.

He's sort of like the Kyle Arrington of Rovers. Any time a traditional quick twitch slot WR like a TY Hilton or whoever would need to be isolated out of that "Star" role, he did it.

Arington was exposed on the perimeter and with his range, like Chung, but conceptually, the quality of their play in those roles was good anyone in the league at that time and now with Chung.

Try reading my post again.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Try reading my post again.

I get where you think I didn't read it well enough, but I don't agree he was "pretty bad".

Richards is bad.

Mediocre and untapped skills from 2009-2012, is probably a better description for Chung's first stint here.

Illegal Contact just called Hightower "decent". I am sorry, word choice like that is laughable.

If Hightower is on the field in SB 52, we win the game. Not a coincidence our D couldn't play quite as well without him.

 

[Kontradiction]

I get where you think I didn't read it well enough, but I don't agree he was "pretty bad".

Richards is bad.

Mediocre and untapped skills from 2009-2012, is probably a better description for Chung's first stint here.

Illegal Contact just called Hightower "decent". I am sorry, word choice like that is laughable.

If Hightower is on the field in SB 52, we win the game. Not a coincidence our D couldn't play quite as well without him.

You did misread my post. Otherwise, this...

What? Chung was taking out Ertz the entire rime before the injury. Do you watch all of these games? I mean, WTF? He's the best Rover in the league.

...makes no sense on any level whatsoever as a response to my post. None. And yes, Chung was "pretty bad" in his first stint here. That's why he lost his starting job in 2012. That's why the team cut ties with him the first time around. It's why they changed his role to what he's best at the second time around. It's why Belichick himself even admitted that they misused him the first time around. Now he's the best in the league at the rover role.

 

[maineman209]

I honestly don’t notice him in ST ever.

He became the personal protector for Ryan Allen after Ebner was injured. He's integral to the other three "big four" ST units.

If you only see network coverage of ST plays and never see BB's film breakdowns online, there are probably several guys doing critical jobs on ST that you'll never know about.

 

[Sicilian]

One factor to consider when you start thinking about upgrading a #4 player on a depth chart: It's not always easy (or wise) to spend high capital on that player. I know Richards' draft position was much maligned (and deservedly so, it would seem), but should we be using a 1st or 2nd round pick to try to upgrade his role? If not, what are the odds of a safety that ISN'T a liability on defense dropping into the 3rd and beyond?

This is the formula that must be balanced IMO. If you're going to try to upgrade Richards as a defensive player, you either have to spend draft capital or money high enough to make that happen (which may not be worth it for a backup position), or you need to draft another ST'er who can contribute as much as he does there and hope he's able to develop into something better than Richards on D (the former being harder than the latter).

This year might be a good year to spend high on this position though, as both McCourty and Chung are getting older, and having a safety net for them in regards to injury or decline wouldn't be the worst strategy. It may be the best of both worlds if the right player is available to us.

 

[maineman209]

It's exactly this that makes the Butler benching so confusing. I get that Butler might have been struggling with some coverage responsibilities., but I completely honestly would rather have had Butler playing the strong safety in the box role over Richards in the Super Bowl. He's much smaller, but is a better tackler, and there's absolutely no way he would have performed worse that Richards. Cover the RB's, TE's, fine, I would have trusted Butler more than Richards. If the Pats had a better option off of the bench, like a Chung lite, then fine. but Richards is like fat free Chung. Just a disgusting option. Richards just plays so slow, like Brady on a scramble slow. It's amazing seeing that speed out of a non-QB in the NFL. I just, but only slightly.

I think you're describing "caffeine-free Chung" rather than "fat-free Chung".

 

[maineman209]

You are aware that the Eagles -- or any other NFL level team -- would just keep running the ball at a player like Butler in that role because it is a gigantic matchup advantage, right ? He would be plowed down more often than not giving up plays and yards in the process. This is not fantasy football or Madden where you can just plug people in based on some kind of rating.

Not to mention the fact that Butler has never played the position, which requires understanding an entirely different set of reads, keys, gap assignments, etc.

 

[maineman209]

I'm completely aware that it isn't Madden. I played both as a TE and as a DE four years in high school on the varsity, a far, far cry from D-1 or the NFL, but I'm aware that it isn't Madden, thanks.

I'm also aware of Richards role, and the duties he had in his role. Trying to go with a three or four safety look to try to simultaneously limit the run while also not giving up much in pass protection wasn't a bad gameplan, but Richards was a massive weak link in that gameplan. His tackling ability and his speed were the major limits to his inefficiencies. The Pats needed to either add a bigger thumper of a LB and a CB to replace two safeties, or they needed to have someone in there to better take care of the 3rd or 4th safety role, and I do believe that Butler could have done that role better.

Not an ideal by any means, I understand, and if they had a better option than Butler on the roster, it would have been much, much better, but I'm saying that Butler, COMPARED TO RICHARDS, could have done that better.

So, Butler would have instantly mastered the vastly different reads, keys, gap assignments, etc?

Tackling ability isn't worth much if you don't know where you need to be.

 

[maineman209]

Both are top Sters, and could/should make the team as STO players.

I think he was referring to Jake Bequette.

 

[maineman209]

One factor to consider when you start thinking about upgrading a #4 player on a depth chart: It's not always easy (or wise) to spend high capital on that player. I know Richards' draft position was much maligned (and deservedly so, it would seem), but should we be using a 1st or 2nd round pick to try to upgrade his role? If not, what are the odds of a safety that ISN'T a liability on defense dropping into the 3rd and beyond?

This is the formula that must be balanced IMO. If you're going to try to upgrade Richards as a defensive player, you either have to spend draft capital or money high enough to make that happen (which may not be worth it for a backup position), or you need to draft another ST'er who can contribute as much as he does there and hope he's able to develop into something better than Richards on D (the former being harder than the latter).

This year might be a good year to spend high on this position though, as both McCourty and Chung are getting older, and having a safety net for them in regards to injury or decline wouldn't be the worst strategy. It may be the best of both worlds if the right player is available to us.

The things is that ALL draftees are still just prospective NFL players until they've proven that they're actually players at the NFL level, regardless what draft slot they were taken in.

Also, the odds of a drafted safety prospect actually turning into a good NFL safety are as big a shot in the dark as for WR prospects. Maybe worse.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

He became the personal protector for Ryan Allen after Ebner was injured. He's integral to the other three "big four" ST units.

If you only see network coverage of ST plays and never see BB's film breakdowns online, there are probably several guys doing critical jobs on ST that you'll never know about.

Honestly, when you think about it, our injuries even to small role guys like a McClellin, Valentine, Jon Jones or Ebner, really showed up in small ways in the loss of the SB.

It is what it is. Like I've said, I am proud of the way the back ups and extended role players' eventual roles come into play and how they got to and almost won the SB.

These are things they couldn't do in 2013 and more so to defend their title in 2015.

 

[BlueThunder]

Both are top Sters, and could/should make the team as STO players.

Bequette is coming back???

 

[Sicilian]

The things is that ALL draftees are still just prospective NFL players until they've proven that they're actually players at the NFL level, regardless what draft slot they were taken in.

Also, the odds of a drafted safety prospect actually turning into a good NFL safety are as big a shot in the dark as for WR prospects. Maybe worse.

Agreed. Which is why if a player you really believe in at safety falls to your draft slot, you probably take a flier on him (both for immediate depth and future protection). But if not, it doesn't make sense to turn upgrading the #4 safety into a high priority.

 

[maineman209]

Agreed. Which is why if a player you really believe in at safety falls to your draft slot, you probably take a flier on him (both for immediate depth and future protection). But if not, it doesn't make sense to turn upgrading the #4 safety into a high priority.

With both McCourty and Chung turning 31 during 2018 Camp, and this being the last season of Chung's current contract, it may be time to be considering grooming successors. And that grooming process might take most of a year, even with a 1st-round pick.

At this point, barring BB somehow coming up with a potential successor to Chung or McCourty in free agency, I wouldn't be totally shocked if BB traded the #31 and #63 to move up as far as the #19 (Dallas) or #20 (Detroit) spot to take Fitzpatrick, if he's still available (not great odds, perhaps). That would (sorta) move Harmon down to the #4 safety spot (there's your "upgrade" for Richards) and Richards back to ST.

 

[varjao]

One factor to consider when you start thinking about upgrading a #4 player on a depth chart: It's not always easy (or wise) to spend high capital on that player. I know Richards' draft position was much maligned (and deservedly so, it would seem), but should we be using a 1st or 2nd round pick to try to upgrade his role? If not, what are the odds of a safety that ISN'T a liability on defense dropping into the 3rd and beyond?

This is the formula that must be balanced IMO. If you're going to try to upgrade Richards as a defensive player, you either have to spend draft capital or money high enough to make that happen (which may not be worth it for a backup position), or you need to draft another ST'er who can contribute as much as he does there and hope he's able to develop into something better than Richards on D (the former being harder than the latter).

This year might be a good year to spend high on this position though, as both McCourty and Chung are getting older, and having a safety net for them in regards to injury or decline wouldn't be the worst strategy. It may be the best of both worlds if the right player is available to us.

I'm on the "CUT HIS ASS" bandwagon but this is a very good post, very nice perspective you brought to this discussion when nerves tend to get hot.

The question that remains though is why the F Belichick drafted him so high. I would be OK with his struggling if he was a 5th or 6th rounder, just like we are kinda ok with Elandon Roberts struggles.

I mean BB decided it wasn't worth the risk of someone else taking him lets say in the 4th round but come on he was nothing special on college. Maybe a 2nd rounder DE from that class could have gotten a sack on the SB now on his 3rd year, or a power back could have converted that 2nd down on our first drive, or they would have used him on a simple rush instead of trying that ****ing jet sweep with Cooks? Just food for though, big imaginary IF's.

 

[patriot1136]

Richards is the worst football player I’ve ever seen. Good thing he has a high football IQ. Totally makes up for it! Ugh.

I still can’t fathom how he couldn’t push JuJu out of bounds. Literally useless.

The football IQ thing is driving me crazy too. Eventually, that IQ needs to lead to making a play right?

 

[mgteich]

So, Richards would be Ok playing defense if he were drafted in the 5th, and should be fired because Belichick drafted him too early.

Actually, you have a HIGHER value on the play of Richards than most.

We want him as a special teamer like Ebner, never to have a defensive rep, except in garbage time, like Ebner.

I'm on the "CUT HIS ASS" bandwagon but this is a very good post, very nice perspective you brought to this discussion when nerves tend to get hot.

The question that remains though is why the F Belichick drafted him so high. I would be OK with his struggling if he was a 5th or 6th rounder, just like we are kinda ok with Elandon Roberts struggles.

I mean BB decided it wasn't worth the risk of someone else taking him lets say in the 4th round but come on he was nothing special on college. Maybe a 2nd rounder DE from that class could have gotten a sack on the SB now on his 3rd year, or a power back could have converted that 2nd down on our first drive, or they would have used him on a simple rush instead of trying that ****ing jet sweep with Cooks? Just food for though, big imaginary IF's.

 

[mgteich]

Richards backs up Chung. He is the backup strong safety, the #2 strong safety.

I'e always been Ok with the #9-11 DB, the #5 LB and the #9 DL not playing any defense. That's 5 STO players, plus the 2 on offense (Bolden and Slater). Since, we now seem to need our #5 corner to play defense, we have sacrificed and have the #4 safety be a major liability.

Unfortunately, we now seem to need to have NINE defensive backs that can play defense. Last year, we had EIGHT plus Richards.

One factor to consider when you start thinking about upgrading a #4 player on a depth chart: It's not always easy (or wise) to spend high capital on that player. I know Richards' draft position was much maligned (and deservedly so, it would seem), but should we be using a 1st or 2nd round pick to try to upgrade his role? If not, what are the odds of a safety that ISN'T a liability on defense dropping into the 3rd and beyond?

This is the formula that must be balanced IMO. If you're going to try to upgrade Richards as a defensive player, you either have to spend draft capital or money high enough to make that happen (which may not be worth it for a backup position), or you need to draft another ST'er who can contribute as much as he does there and hope he's able to develop into something better than Richards on D (the former being harder than the latter).

This year might be a good year to spend high on this position though, as both McCourty and Chung are getting older, and having a safety net for them in regards to injury or decline wouldn't be the worst strategy. It may be the best of both worlds if the right player is available to us.