Pats Sign LB James Anderson and .......well There Goes My Mark Harrison @ TE Theory......

[mgteich]

I'm a bit confused. When was the last time we had 4 TE's on the in-season roster (and for how long)?
I think that we carried 3 almost all of last year. I see no reason to carry four unless one is an H-back replacing Develin in that role.

Also, when was the last time we carried 5 true wide receivers, not counting STers like Slater and Ventrone.

IMHO, our "norm" is 5 WR and 3 TE's plus a special teamer. 8 in plenty, even acknowledging that PR and KR are likely to come from this group. If we kept another, it would be becuase we keep an additional STER.

Haven't we been carrying 25 on offense?
OFF (25)
QB 2
WR 5
TE 3
OL 8
RB 4
FB 1
ST 1 (Slater)

This year, many would like to carry an additional QB and/or an addition OL. I don't think that we should be taking roster spots from the defense, although in the end, the last few roster spots could be at any position.

DEFENSE (25)
4 DE
5 DT
5 LB
5 CB
3 S
3 ST (usually LB's or S's)

I'd agree with you more if the team was going to go with 4 TE's like they have been the last few years. However the "depth" gets better when you consider the possibility that the team goes with 6 true WR's (plus Slater) and only 3 TE's this season, and giving all those "move TE" routes to a WR like LaFell.

 

[supafly]

I'm a bit confused. When was the last time we had 4 TE's on the in-season roster (and for how long)?
I think that we carried 3 almost all of last year. I see no reason to carry four unless one is an H-back replacing Develin in that role.

Also, when was the last time we carried 5 true wide receivers, not counting STers like Slater and Ventrone.

IMHO, our "norm" is 5 WR and 3 TE's plus a special teamer. 8 in plenty, even acknowledging that PR and KR are likely to come from this group. If we kept another, it would be becuase we keep an additional STER.

Haven't we been carrying 25 on offense?
OFF (25)
QB 2
WR 5
TE 3
OL 8
RB 4
FB 1
ST 1 (Slater)

This year, many would like to carry an additional QB and/or an addition OL. I don't think that we should be taking roster spots from the defense, although in the end, the last few roster spots could be at any position.

DEFENSE (25)
4 DE
5 DT
5 LB
5 CB
3 S
3 ST (usually LB's or S's)

I think every season we see an additional spot or two freed up and swapped in other positions. That will obviously depend on the situation, etc.

This year my guess is that we'll almost definitely keep 5 "true" wide receivers, with Slater being the 6th. Edelman, Amendola, LaFell, Dobson, and Slater is already 5 right there. That isn't even bringing Kenbrell Thompkins or Josh Boyce into account, let alone the other rookies and UDFAs.

I highly doubt we'd keep 4 TEs however.

I don't worry about the "25" number on offense, though. I think that could obviously go up or down a spot.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with your WR and TE numbers. I would expect the 5th WR to be a kick returner.

Yes, the 25 man total could increase for an OL or QB, or decrease if we don't carry a FB.

I think every season we see an additional spot or two freed up and swapped in other positions. That will obviously depend on the situation, etc.

This year my guess is that we'll almost definitely keep 5 "true" wide receivers, with Slater being the 6th. Edelman, Amendola, LaFell, Dobson, and Slater is already 5 right there. That isn't even bringing Kenbrell Thompkins or Josh Boyce into account, let alone the other rookies and UDFAs.

I highly doubt we'd keep 4 TEs however.

I don't worry about the "25" number on offense, though. I think that could obviously go up or down a spot.

 

[supafly]

If I had to guess right now though, I'd say that your "25" would be pretty darn close:

9 OL
6 WR (including Slater)
3 TE (another on the PS)
3 QB
4 RB

 

[supafly]

I agree with your WR and TE numbers. I would expect the 5th WR to be a kick returner.

Yes, the 25 man total could increase for an OL or QB, or decrease if we don't carry a FB.

Yes, hopefully a guy like Boyce can offer something at that return spot this year.

Any thought about RB James White in this role, possibly?

I don't know if 4 RBs will be enough or not. I suppose some of this will depend on who can be on the PS.

 

[mgteich]

We seem fine with 4 RB's and a FB. IMHO, the questionable position is FB. Personally, I like having a FB, and would like to see an upgrade from free agency.

I suppose Houston and Finch can be on the Practice Squad if they can't win a roster spot.

I don't know if 4 RBs will be enough or not. I suppose some of this will depend on who can be on the PS.

 

[TonyTucker]

WHAT!? They cut Mark "HOF" Harrison? But he's huge! 6'3, 225, could play TE!

 

[Kontradiction]

I'd agree with you more if the team was going to go with 4 TE's like they have been the last few years. However the "depth" gets better when you consider the possibility that the team goes with 6 true WR's (plus Slater) and only 3 TE's this season, and giving all those "move TE" routes to a WR like LaFell.

The WR's are totally irrelevant to this conversation.

So now your TE position includes the best TE in the league, a solid blue collar back up in Hooman, and the winner of the #3 TE job from among Jones, Williams, and Watson. Even if the Pats decide to sign a Keller or Finely, they still could decide to go with only 3 TE's.

In no universe is Hooman a "solid back up". Blue collar, maybe. But he's simply another body. Keller, even with a destroyed knee, would probably be an improvement over him because Keller can actually get open. If Gronk gets injured again, we haven't a single viable threat at the position short of Jones suddenly surprising and realizing untapped speed.

Where we disagree, is if for some reason the Pats don't sign the vet TE (probably due to health reasons) and stay with Gronk, Hooman, and the #3 TE winner from the rest. I'd be OK with that result, and you clearly aren't.

Nope. I want the team to put the best unit on the field possible. I said that about the 2009-2011 defenses and got slammed for it by plenty of people here who, for God knows what reason, were just fine with the way the defense looked. Turned out Belichick agreed that the defense needed some major work and the result is the product you see today. Hooman behind a guy that has gotten either nagging or season ending injuries three seasons in a row and plays with reckless abandon is not my idea of solid depth.

If the Pat's brain trust feel the need for 4 TE's then we'd come more into agreement and more personnel work needs to be done, but the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that we are going back to 3 TE's for this season.

I'm fine with 3 TE's. I just want to see an improvement over the Hooman. After Gronk, that's in the competition for the worst stable of TE's in the NFL. I suspect Belichick knows that which is why there has been reported interest in Finley and Keller.

BTW- I think you underestimate Hooman somewhat. He is a more than capable blocker, and decent if slower receiver with better than average hands. I know he's not any kind of "receiving TE", but if need be could be more effective if targeted more with routes suitable to his talents.

His blocking skills, which you seem to be overrating a bit, do not make up for the fact that he's next to useless as a receiver. That's what the team would need at the position should Gronk get sidelined for any length of time.

 

[Mack Herron]

I am starting to question the idea that BB was merely waiting for June 1 to sign Keller or Finley.

 

[patriot lifer]

Shmessy: 3) He did all that in his first year after coming to a completely new system.



PL, he was CALLING THE DEFENSIVE PLAYS in his first year in a new system. That is remarkable - - no matter whether it is overrated by fans, it is definitely seen by someone like BB as a mark of leadership and a quick uptake.

Without all that responsibility, and as long as Mayo, Hightower and Collins don't all go down all at once for extended periods, this guy should be an effective cog. If he is pressed into being the center of the defense, then, yes, we are in trouble.

He could be an effective cog. His competencies appear to be that he's good in pass coverage and special teams. For the running game, we have something to watch for, given some of the Bears board talk. Is he a liability? Average? We'll see. Hopefully we don't need him on 1st or 2nd down anyways.

I still don't think an 8- or 9-year veteran repeating the play to team-mates is a tall order. He's 30--not 22. So "remarkable" strikes me as hyperbole in reference to listening and relaying the playcalls. And who says he learned the new system well? But I agree that BB will like to have a veteran who doesn't need to be coached as much as a younger player. This ain't his first rodeo.

 

[Jrik83]

This is a very solid signing. And one at the position that they had the greatest need for a veteran body, at least IMHO.

 

[varjao]

I am starting to question the idea that BB was merely waiting for June 1 to sign Keller or Finley.

I think this year due to this deep draft the training camp cuts will be very interesting, no need to rush. They may have a verbal agreement with Keller, needing a little more time to assess his condition.

 

[mayoclinic]

"Productive but decidedly upgradeable starter" = Awesome vet-minimum backup, I'd think.

It's all about context.

If the Pats had signed Steve Gregory in 2012 for the veteran minimum to be quality depth at safety it would have been a wildly successful signing. At the price they paid, and as a starter, he was "productive but decidedly upgradeable".

Similarly, the Pats looked at Wesley Woodyard in the offseason, and many of us would have been thrilled if they had signed him for depth and coverage ability. Woodyard lost his starting job in 2013, but still ended up signing with the Titans for 4 years / $15.75M. Anderson has been at least as productive as Woodyard over the past 4 seasons (he's played in 60 out of 64 games over that timeframe, starting 59), has similar coverage ability, can play multiple LB positions, is a cerebral veteran viewed as a "coach on the field" type (as was Gregory) and is an excellent STer, at a fraction of the cost.

Awesome vet-minimum backup, indeed.

 

[JMC00]

I am starting to question the idea that BB was merely waiting for June 1 to sign Keller or Finley.

Well Finley seems to have multiple teams interested so Pats could have made and offer and Finley is just waiting until he gets all offers to make a decision.

As for Keller I think he's only made one reported visit to a team and it was to NE. So either Keller is dead set on coming to New England right now or maybe it was that Keller probably wouldn't be full go for OTAs so there was no point in using a roster spot but would be ready for Training Camp in Late July. I don't know, just a couple of theories.

I just think from the start they weren't going to be signed until after OTAs. No reason to use a roster spot on either when they would be off in the rehab group when they could do that on their own.

 

[Deus Irae]

A much needed signing. One more LB still likely to be added, if someone worth a damn shakes loose, is my guess.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. How can he lead the team in tackles but "struggled against the run"?

My guess, tackling the runner after the runner has gained decent yardage.
We had a fast LB we let go a couple years ago who did just that.
Based on the # of tackles I have trouble with that criticism too.

 

[Brady6]

If I had to guess right now though, I'd say that your "25" would be pretty darn close:

9 OL
6 WR (including Slater)
3 TE (another on the PS)
3 QB
4 RB

QB 3
RB 5
WR 7
TE 3
OL 9
DL 9
LB 5
DB 9
ST 3

Slater is one of the 7 WRs.

 

[mgteich]

So, since the issue on the team is defense, the solution is to carry only 23 defensive players. How often have we done that under Belichick?

QB 3
RB 5
WR 7
TE 3
OL 9
DL 9
LB 5
DB 9
ST 3

Slater is one of the 7 WRs.

 

[supafly]

QB 3
RB 5
WR 7
TE 3
OL 9
DL 9
LB 5
DB 9
ST 3

Slater is one of the 7 WRs.

You could be right. This could be a very rare year which would include 7 WRs (with Slater), although I'd have a very hard time imagining a total of 27 offensive players myself. To be honest though, I don't really see 7 WRs. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure how often it's even been the norm to keep 6 lately, although that likely had a lot to do with the 2 TE heavy sets.

So, since the issue on the team is defense, the solution is to carry only 23 defensive players. How often have we done that under Belichick?

Yeah, I would have a very difficult time imagining only 23 on defense--especially when I believe that we'll keep at least one more in both the front seven + possibly the secondary.

Of course we'll be able to carry 54 for the first month until Browner returns from suspension, so it's quite possible that someone will be axed once he comes back.

 

[ausbacker]

You could be right. This could be a very rare year which would include 7 WRs (with Slater), although I'd have a very hard time imagining a total of 27 offensive players myself. To be honest though, I don't really see 7 WRs. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure how often it's even been the norm to keep 6 lately, although that likely had a lot to do with the 2 TE heavy sets.

Yeah, I would have a very difficult time imagining only 23 on defense--especially when I believe that we'll keep at least one more in both the front seven + possibly the secondary.

Of course we'll be able to carry 54 for the first month until Browner returns from suspension, so it's quite possible that someone will be axed once he comes back.

Isn't it nice to be have your hand forced as to who the Patriots are going to retain on the 53? It's been some time since the Patriots appeared to run this deep.