Martellus Bennett : [UPDATE: Placed on IR]

[Wordsmyth]

SIGNED THE BEAST?!

 

[luuked]

As far as Bennett goes, he’s due a 2m dollar roster bonus in the spring, so depending on various factors, he could end up as a 1/2 year rental, too, and if that happens I’m fine with whatever decision Belichick chooses to make. In the meantime, we’ll hope this is a longer term move, but it will need to be reassessed in a month or two.

Yes, but fortunately this time the Pats have the leverage of knowing that they can have a TE2 at a set price if they chose to. So they have enough time to actually look through the market and make a sound decision. Last year they were kinda under pressure of losing out completely or getting into a bidding war.

Also we still dont know how serious Marty has been with his retirement thoughts. But as you are saying at the end.. that is something to reassess after the season is over.

 

[luuked]

Can’t they just cut Allen. My god what a terrible fit for this offense and Brady. Makes Scott Chandler seem like a great move.

No because Allen is paid for anyway so why throw away depth+ produce dead money. Also he is a more solid blocker than Marty and can now be used more situationally which means he can throw out half of the playbook that seems to be overwhelming him and focus on certain plays. Josh will love the occasional 3 TE sets.. could be exactly what we needed to get over the hump in the RZ..

I am with Hannable and Loyko on this one:

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The amount of money for MB this season is peanuts. What is not cheap is a roster spot. BB would not gamble one on a wish and a prayer. Welcome back Marty!

I agree Neal regarding the value of a roster spot. But 'MB 2016' is a no brainer. That production being given a roster spot is a slam dunk compared to bubble players. (we have 4 active TEs now. Can that continue?)

"Peanuts", relatively, for cost is accurate and that is the part that has me puzzled. Why would all other 30 other teams pass on 'MB 2016' when the cost is peanuts and the signing is without 2018 or beyond cost exposure (unless the team decided to keep MB-MB wanted to stay)?

I assure you I am ecstatic about the MB signing if he is healthy/will be healthy and ready to play. I'm just searching for how this could happen. And the explanation that adds up is: MB wanted back on the Patriots, actively worked to get cut from GB (he did announce his "retirement" a few weeks ago which had to piss off GB), and it was quietly made known to the other 30 that he had no intention of being a happy camper or playing for them. And with GB's undisclosed injury claim, one possibility is MB was saying he was injured to help facilitate his departure (what other explanation is there for this "undisclosed" injury? Doesn't GB have doctors?)

If that's not the explanation, I just don't see how anything else adds up to a productive blocking/receiving TE, at the cost of peanuts, little cap exposure and no guaranteed future commitment, healthy/ready to play(?), getting passed over by every other team to land on the SB winning-15 year dominant franchise NE Patriots.
I don't care TBH how he got back to the Patriots if MB 2016 is back. But when something seems to good to be true it probably...(needs to be seen first)

 

[luuked]

If that's not the explanation, I just don't see how anything else adds up to a productive blocking/receiving TE, at the cost of peanuts, little cap exposure and no guaranteed future commitment, healthy/ready to play(?), getting passed over by every other team to land on the SB winning-15 year dominant franchise NE Patriots.

I always thought there was a reasonably good chance he made it through waivers mostly because what is the incentive for a team to add a new player that a) has announced that he plans to retire after the season, b) who has been controversially waived by GB, c) where nobody except GB knows how serious the shoulder injury really is and d) who has to learn the routes and blocking schemes to be used effectively for what might end up only 8 games.

What makes the Pats position to claim him so unique is that he was just here last year so if the injury is not too serious he might be the closest thing to a plug and play player they could have gotten. I still think it is a complicated situation because of the injury and the retirement thoughts but maybe as others have suggested there was some backchannel communication happening once he was waived.

Similarly, it will be fascinating to observe what happens now with the compensatory pick if Bennett ends up playing a significant amount of snaps here. Would be the most BB thing ever to gain a comp pick on a player that ended up back on their team.

 

[NE-VT]

(we have 4 active TEs now. Can that continue?)

Allen is paid for anyway so why throw away depth and produce dead money and also he is a more solid blocker than Marty and can now be used more situationally which means he can throw out half of the playbook that seems to be overwhelming him and focus on certain plays. Josh will love the occasional 3 TE sets..

I still think retaining 4 TEs (or more accurately 3 TEs and a move TE) would be surprising. If we do, it might speak to our views of the future potential of Hollister and/or his value for ST. At this point Hollister is at 6.7% of offensive snaps and 26.2% of ST snaps.

I am unsure if we "stash" players on IR. If that is a practice, I wonder if we do it in this case. Then again, that forces Hollister to miss valuable practice time.

I could still see us cutting any of the TEs besides Gronk in the near future.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I am surprised that MB is back, for three reasons.

First, it sounded as though he is really done for the year -- seriously enough injured that the Packers would have put him on IR if they hadn't been angry at him for being injured before he arrived.

Second, the fact that the Pats didn't seem to make a serious effort to sign him after 2016 made me think that Belichick doesn't like his act as much as I do.

But, third, I thought that, if he really can help, there's an obvious destination: Indianapolis. One of the many things that MB did in 2016 was bond with and support Jacoby Brissett. Wouldn't it be smart to get him a trusted tight-end target for very little money? Either Ballard is an idiot, like Grigson, or he thinks that MB is done for the year.

 

[luuked]

I still think retaining 4 TEs (or more accurately 3 TEs and a move TE) would be surprising. If we do, it might speak to our views of the future potential of Hollister and/or his value for ST. At this point Hollister is at 6.7% of offensive snaps and 26.2% of ST snaps.

I am unsure if we "stash" players on IR. If that is a practice, I wonder if we do it in this case. Then again, that forces Hollister to miss valuable practice time.

I could still see us cutting any of the TEs besides Gronk in the near future.

I honestly dont see a reason why there is no space for Hollister on the team unless MM comes back and by all accounts it still sounds more likely that VV will be the one player returning from IR.

 

[NE-VT]

I honestly dont see a reason why there is no space for Hollister on the team unless MM comes back and by all accounts it still sounds more likely that VV will be the one player returning from IR.

I don't have a deep reason either. I just feel like there is a diminishing return to offensive depth. Only so many RBs and TEs are going to consistently play in a game, and we are quite deep right now in those positions. Yet our WRs and and front 7 might be thin? You tell me:

Unofficial Depth Chart

(Perhaps Hollister is thought of as a "move TE" and hence almost counted as a WR in their mind)

More generally, I agree that three true blocking tight ends might have situational red-zone value. Scoring TDs in the red-zone is deeply important, so it may be worth it. But it also reminds me of your comment on Roberts: "The question really is if you can afford to have a situational player that is inconsistent and offers little ST value on a 53 men roster."

 

[luuked]

I don't have a deep reason either. I just feel like there is a diminishing return to offensive depth. Only so many RBs and TEs are going to consistently play in a game, and we are quite deep right now in those positions. Yet our WRs and and front 7 might be thin? You tell me:

Unofficial Depth Chart

(Perhaps Hollister is thought of as a "move TE" and hence almost counted as a WR in their mind)

More generally, I agree that three true blocking tight ends might have situational red-zone value. Scoring TDs in the red-zone is deeply important, so it may be worth it. But it also reminds me of your comment on Roberts: "The question really is if you can afford to have a situational player that is inconsistent and offers little ST value on a 53 men roster."

No I get what you are saying, but from my POV for now Hollister is nothing more but a big body WR with a limited route tree. So while he is assigned a TE spot he might as well count as WR depth (as you have alluded to) where we are actually kinda thin especially with Hogan out. I think having 13 skill position players (4WR + 4TE + 4RB + 1FB) sounds about right. Now obviously I excluded Bolden and Slater in this equation because they are ST players first and emergency depth second.

 

[RobertWeathers]

No because Allen is paid for anyway so why throw away depth+ produce dead money. Also he is a more solid blocker than Marty and can now be used more situationally which means he can throw out half of the playbook that seems to be overwhelming him and focus on certain plays. Josh will love the occasional 3 TE sets.. could be exactly what we needed to get over the hump in the RZ..

I am with Hannable and Loyko on this one:

Hadn't heard/seen Marty weakening as a blocker. Bears watching.

 

[dannydyn]

Great, so now we have 2 legit TEs (Gronk and Bennett) + 1 legit O-lineman (Allen).... win-win

 

[DarrylS]

Welcome back to the fold Martellus, this is the the type of move that can make this team better and provide another great option for #12..

He is a rare bird and does not completely fit the mold of most Football Players, with his Imagination Agency and such, then there is the politics of his brother Michael.. wonder if that is why other teams shyed away.

Last year he commented that the NFL stands for; "N...ers for Lease", he does not follow the script... The NFL will deal with the Greg Hardy's, Adrian Peterson's and Josh Gordon's.. but shy away from anything political.

 

[Wordsmyth]

Hadn't heard/seen Marty weakening as a blocker. Bears watching.

Patriots watching.

 

[shmessy]

The amount of money for MB this season is peanuts. What is not cheap is a roster spot. BB would not gamble one on a wish and a prayer........

Jordan Richards says hi.......

.

 

[RayClay]

I am surprised that MB is back, for three reasons.

First, it sounded as though he is really done for the year -- seriously enough injured that the Packers would have put him on IR if they hadn't been angry at him for being injured before he arrived.

Second, the fact that the Pats didn't seem to make a serious effort to sign him after 2016 made me think that Belichick doesn't like his act as much as I do.

But, third, I thought that, if he really can help, there's an obvious destination: Indianapolis. One of the many things that MB did in 2016 was bond with and support Jacoby Brissett. Wouldn't it be smart to get him a trusted tight-end target for very little money? Either Ballard is an idiot, like Grigson, or he thinks that MB is done for the year.

Can they cut an injured player because they are angry?

 

[Mike the Brit]

Just to remind ourselves of Martellus at his best:

 

[maineman209]

I don't have a deep reason either. I just feel like there is a diminishing return to offensive depth. Only so many RBs and TEs are going to consistently play in a game, and we are quite deep right now in those positions. Yet our WRs and and front 7 might be thin? You tell me:

Unofficial Depth Chart

(Perhaps Hollister is thought of as a "move TE" and hence almost counted as a WR in their mind)

More generally, I agree that three true blocking tight ends might have situational red-zone value. Scoring TDs in the red-zone is deeply important, so it may be worth it. But it also reminds me of your comment on Roberts: "The question really is if you can afford to have a situational player that is inconsistent and offers little ST value on a 53 men roster."

I seems to me that, while Hogan is out, Hollister/(Slater) is effectively the #4 WR.

Meanwhile, Bennett adds a legit receiving target coming out of the TE position - something that was virtually non-existent during the first half of the season. That will force some coverage adjustments. Indeed, the presence of Bennett on the field with Gronk may help improve red-zone performance even when neither of them is the designed pass target.

Furthermore, because Bennett will almost certainly be out in the pass pattern more often than Allen, Hollister or Develin have been, he should be more frequently available for downfield blocking assignments than those guys have been. IIRC, he was always pretty decent at downfield blocking and likely still is, even if his inline blocking has declined. This may enhance the success of screen plays and of outside running plays, too, and also probably helps obscure run/pass a bit more.

So, even with Hogan OUT, with Bennett IN, the number of personnel permutations that will provide five reasonably legit passing targets (and defensive mis-matches) for Brady has increased at least a bit.
-----

On a side note, 13 offensive skill-position players have contributed a total of 480 ST snaps so far, with Bolden's 146 accounting for over 30% of those. Develin is second highest with 82 ST snaps and Hollister is third with 60. Slater ("WR") is actually 4th with 53, but he was inactive for four games with a groin injury. Allen has only 22 ST snaps.

Meanwhile, 26 defensive players have contributed 1592 ST snaps. Roberts contributed 37 while Lawrence Guy contributed 88.

So, even if Bennett is likely to contribute near zero ST snaps, it's not as much a concern for me as the lack of contributions from Roberts.

 

[RIpats88]

I doubt he is done for the year otherwise the packers wouldve just put him on IR and not cut him. and likeweise bill wouldnt put in a claim for him.

to me, this reeks of Bennett quitting on the packers because he never really produced in green bay and rogers is out. The shoulder injury probably was something he couldve played through as he did multiple times last yea

 

[NE-VT]

Great, so now we have 2 legit TEs (Gronk and Bennett) + 1 legit O-lineman (Allen).... win-win

Many pages ago I made an argument for how TA's skills impact the passing game even if he is not targeted. I also argued that who is to blame for his lack of catches is complicated. @Tony2046 pointed out that only one of his targets were a clear drop.

No worries if you just believe Allen should be considered a OL but don't want to argue it, or if you were just making a joke because of your perception of his route running ability. I just wanted to explain why some might disagree with your joke/statement.