Pass distribution first 6 weeks sans Edelman

[Ring 6]

The issue is roster and risk management.

Some teams choose to use starters as punt returners, kick returners and on special teams. Some limit the exposure by having more specialists, or use backups as special teamers. Belichick chooses to have lots of special team specialists, but not return specialists. Belichick is fine with using starters as returners and on special teams. Obviously, this method has worked out for Belichick.

Would any of us have problems if we had a #4 or #5 WR (or #4 RB) that we used for returns? Would any of us have problems if guys like McCourty were excluded from special teams? Of course not.

How much of a problem did we have when Chris Harper filled the exact role you are talking about and cost us a game in Denver, HFA advantage and possibly a SB?
Why would your standard of the best way for belichick to coach the team whether "we" would face problems with his decision?

Sure, we can point out game where we might have done better if we used our top players on special teams. Also, there are cases where starters are injured and don't do better.

Starters get injured playing offense or defense too. Can't bubble wrap them.

It seems that your philosophy is to ignore risk management, play your best players as returners and special teams, and just call it bad luck if there are injuries. That is indeed a viable strategy, but certainly not the only one.

Keeping the best player for the job off the field because maybe he will get injured on that play is being driven by fear. To think that the best plan is to throw away plays doesn't make sense to me.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

The elephant in the room is Amendola's ability to stay on the field at this rate.

Amendola is so key now to say least. Clutch, Money when you need him.

 

[Ring 6]

The issue is roster and risk management.

Some teams choose to use starters as punt returners, kick returners and on special teams. Some limit the exposure by having more specialists, or use backups as special teamers. Belichick chooses to have lots of special team specialists, but not return specialists. Belichick is fine with using starters as returners and on special teams. Obviously, this method has worked out for Belichick.

Would any of us have problems if we had a #4 or #5 WR (or #4 RB) that we used for returns? Would any of us have problems if guys like McCourty were excluded from special teams? Of course not.

How much of a problem did we have when Chris Harper filled the exact role you are talking about and cost us a game in Denver, HFA advantage and possibly a SB?
Why would your standard of the best way for belichick to coach the team whether "we" would face problems with his decision?

Sure, we can point out game where we might have done better if we used our top players on special teams. Also, there are cases where starters are injured and don't do better.

Starters get injured playing offense or defense too. Can't bubble wrap them.

It seems that your philosophy is to ignore risk management, play your best players as returners and special teams, and just call it bad luck if there are injuries. That is indeed a viable strategy, but certainly not the only one.

Keeping the best player for the job off the field because maybe he will get injured on that play is being driven by fear. i just don't think athletes and coaches think like that.

 

[mgteich]

How much of a problem did we have when Chris Harper filled the exact role you are talking about and cost us a game in Denver, HFA advantage and possibly a SB?

Choosing to use an incompetent Harper as a punt returner doesn't make your point. OBVIOUSLY, Belichick's approach works. Alternative approach would be to consider PUNT RETURNER a special team position, like gunner and the rest. Belichick has ST starters at various special team positions. Some also play positions. For example, a special teamer is also a #5 emergency corner.

It is NOT unreasonable to carry a punt returner who is also the #5 WR, or the #5 RB. Under this logic, a STARTING quality punt returner would be on the team instead of Bolden. He might be an emergency RB like Bolden. He might be an emergency WR. He could even be a #5 CB. It DOES seem unlikely that a punt returner could be so important that he doesn't do anything else. Perhaps, he also be kick returner, or backup holder, or punter.

BOTTOM LINE
If I weren't willing to use Edelman on punts, then I wouldn't use a scrub untested returner like Harper. I would acquire a punt returner. IMHO, Belichick intended to use Amendola this year, or not.

A RELATED ISSUE
Some would say that having a healthy Gronk, Lewis and a couple of others is more important that a bye. They would argue to have other players play more early in the season, and rest some players who get lots of injuries and are nicked a bit. This approach has two advantages. The backups get reps and are more help later in the season, if needed. And the PROBABILITY of each of these players being injured is reduced.

Clearly, this is NOT Belichick's approach, or Brady's. But we can't have it both ways. We shouldn't complain if backups aren't ready, if they rarely play.

 

[Ring 6]

Choosing to use an incompetent Harper as a punt returner doesn't make your point.

So the one time they did what you are saying doesn't apply?

OBVIOUSLY, Belichick's approach works. Alternative approach would be to consider PUNT RETURNER a special team position, like gunner and the rest. Belichick has ST starters at various special team positions. Some also play positions. For example, a special teamer is also a #5 emergency corner.

Punt returner is a few plays a game. Gunners do more than cover punts.

It is NOT unreasonable to carry a punt returner who is also the #5 WR, or the #5 RB. Under this logic, a STARTING quality punt returner would be on the team instead of Bolden. He might be an emergency RB like Bolden. He might be an emergency WR. He could even be a #5 CB. It DOES seem unlikely that a punt returner could be so important that he doesn't do anything else. Perhaps, he also be kick returner, or backup holder, or punter.

Lot of perhapses. Probably part of the reason it doesn't happen.

[quite]BOTTOM LINE
If I weren't willing to use Edelman on punts, then I wouldn't use a scrub untested returner like Harper. I would acquire a punt returner. IMHO, Belichick intended to use Amendola this year, or not.

A RELATED ISSUE
Some would say that having a healthy Gronk, Lewis and a couple of others is more important that a bye. They would argue to have other players play more early in the season, and rest some players who get lots of injuries and are nicked a bit. This approach has two advantages. The backups get reps and are more help later in the season, if needed. And the PROBABILITY of each of these players being injured is reduced.

Clearly, this is NOT Belichick's approach, or Brady's. But we can't have it both ways. We shouldn't complain if backups aren't ready, if they rarely play.[/QUOTE]
So you are arguing we should hold back players during the season liessen the chance of winning and hope that we can make the playoffs and all willl be well.
How does a team that is being told not to play hard, and every game doesn't matter sand they should be afraid of playing because they will get hurt, win games.
This is my point. You can't manage football players like they are accountants.

 

[maineman209]

Choosing to use an incompetent Harper as a punt returner doesn't make your point. OBVIOUSLY, Belichick's approach works. Alternative approach would be to consider PUNT RETURNER a special team position, like gunner and the rest. Belichick has ST starters at various special team positions. Some also play positions. For example, a special teamer is also a #5 emergency corner.

It is NOT unreasonable to carry a punt returner who is also the #5 WR, or the #5 RB. Under this logic, a STARTING quality punt returner would be on the team instead of Bolden. He might be an emergency RB like Bolden. He might be an emergency WR. He could even be a #5 CB. It DOES seem unlikely that a punt returner could be so important that he doesn't do anything else. Perhaps, he also be kick returner, or backup holder, or punter.

BOTTOM LINE
If I weren't willing to use Edelman on punts, then I wouldn't use a scrub untested returner like Harper. I would acquire a punt returner. IMHO, Belichick intended to use Amendola this year, or not.

A RELATED ISSUE
Some would say that having a healthy Gronk, Lewis and a couple of others is more important that a bye. They would argue to have other players play more early in the season, and rest some players who get lots of injuries and are nicked a bit. This approach has two advantages. The backups get reps and are more help later in the season, if needed. And the PROBABILITY of each of these players being injured is reduced.

Clearly, this is NOT Belichick's approach, or Brady's. But we can't have it both ways. We shouldn't complain if backups aren't ready, if they rarely play.

It's also not a if BB hasn't tried to move away from Amendola (and Edelman) at PR. Perhaps if Cy Jones hadn't gotten injured, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

FWIW, BB also has McCarron on the PS, although I can't see a clear, non-specialist role for him on the active roster right now. Since we can't know what actually goes on in practice during the season, it's just a guess, but it seems likely to me that he at least plays the role of designated PR/KR on the scout team for ST coverage units to work against. As BB might say, "we'll see how that goes."

The bottom line for me is that I'm not seeing a legit alternative option to Amendola on the AR at the moment. After six practice weeks into the season, if one had emerged, he'd be out there instead of Danny.

 

[brdmaverick]

Another Amendola injury on a punt return.......hopefully it doesn't cause him to miss time.....but I hate seeing a punt return injury. Keep him off punt returns or have him fair catch. He's too valuable for the offense with Edelman out (if Edelman was here I'd say return all the punts you'd like).