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

[patchick]

I question your depiction of there being 10 punts per side in each game. I think 10 punts total for both teams is more likely.

Minor point, but I think you just misread my post -- I did say per game, not per side.

More broadly, I do see your point about the roster effects of the slow death of the kickoff as a meaningful play. IMO the current state of kickoffs is pretty much the worst possible, because you still have to carry the players for the full kickoff team but the play is largely rote. It's becoming like extra points, but with a higher body count.

 

[Deus Irae]

So, should we PLAN on having 4 WR's injured plus all our TE's? Should we plan to lose 2 DT's and 2 LB's?
I agree that we should have solid backups, and even OK players if 2 are injured at one position. HOWEVER, I just don't think that planning to lose so many in one unit is reasonable.

Do we really need to show you the injury history of both the team and the receivers, or can you just concede the obvious? The exact number may be arguable in a given year, but the concept is obviously sound:

I wonder of BB might not value depth of offensive/defensive units over marginal differences in ST ability.

 

[JayNM]

New England Patriots ?@Patriots 2m
#Patriots sign TE Kyle Auffray; Release WR Derrick Johnson: http://www.patriots.com/news/article-1/Patriots-sign-TE-Kyle-Auffray-Release-WR-Derrick-Johnson/1e6f6b31-1f2f-4143-9070-f43597f7e350…

 

[patfanken]

So, should we PLAN on having 4 WR's injured plus all our TE's? Should we plan to lose 2 DT's and 2 LB's?
I agree that we should have solid backups, and even OK players if 2 are injured at one position. HOWEVER, I just don't think that planning to lose so many in one unit is reasonable.

I think you are stretching a bit to make your point. Look at it through this lens.

1. Lets assume the Pats punt 5 times per game. Lets also assume that 3 of those punts each game will not be returned. (I think the number would be closer to 1 per game but lets be conservative). So Slater would have the opportunity to have an impact on 1-2 plays per game on the punt team.

2. Lets assume the Pats would KO and average of 5-6 times per game (which sounds right). So lets add another 1-2 plays where Slater would have the CHANCE to excel.

So in reality Slater, who is one of the best in the league at what he does, is now limited to 2-4 OPPORTUNITIES each game to have an impact.

3. Now if that's the case, is it fair to question whether we should keep a player, even one of the best in the league at what he does, with a $2MM cap hit, who is likely to have only 2-4 opportunities to make an impact on the game.

Now this is not Slater's fault. Before the rules changes, that number would have likely been 8-12 shots a game to make a difference. But again at 2-4, is his play THAT much better than a player who would likely be his replacement. Is his play going to add THAT much value or be THAT much better than a reserve WR/OL/DL/DB who might get more chances to impact the team over the course of the season on both ST's and regular O/D, than a "specialist".

Listen, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know for a fact that over the last few years ST's themselves have been devalued by the rules and the skills of the kicking specialists. Why is that such a hard concept to accept. We've had to accept the devaluation of LB's, FB's and RB's due to changes in the game, why is ST's teams exempt?

If BB has taught us anything, he is usually leading the way in adjusting to the way "things are" and usually is never caught up in relying on how things "used to be". Why should I believe that BB's well known love of all things special teams would keep him from making the adjustments we all see coming in that aspect of the game.

Special teams play use to be a way for marginal players to make a team and hopefully develop into more than marginal players. I think that avenue to the NFL is going to be harder to to find. On the other hand, back in the day a 4th or 5th WR wouldn't be an important cog in the receiving corps, and the 4th or 5th CB would rarely get any snaps. Now days those "marginal players"/reserves are getting more opportunities to get snaps on the regular O/D than they did

 

[pencilneckgeek]

So, should we PLAN on having 4 WR's injured plus all our TE's? Should we plan to lose 2 DT's and 2 LB's?
I agree that we should have solid backups, and even OK players if 2 are injured at one position. HOWEVER, I just don't think that planning to lose so many in one unit is reasonable.

Your straw man scares no crows. Perhaps, you were hoping for a cowardly lion? Myself, I have no heart, and am unimpressed, but I digress, Dorothy.

Perhaps it is my perception, but the injury rate in the NFL seems to be increasing, along with the pace of the game. Previously durable players fall ill. Moreover, the game-plan offense/defense could put a different set of DL, LB, WR, RB or DB in any given game. Therefore, the marginal benefit of having depth at a position, coupled with the decreasing relevance of ST may be an opportunity for BB to recalibrate his thinking somewhat to favor offensive/defensive positional depth over ST specialists who do not provide a significant upgrade.

There are other factors in play. BB has indicated in the past how having dedicated STers allows them to practice their plays, while the offense and defense run theirs. That would not change if BB looks to his 4th S more for block-shedding ability in a big nickel, for example, than his punt coverage ability, although it might affect how smoothly those practices go, when his 4th S is suddenly practicing with the first-team defense for a game. Moreover, having experienced STers helps with the efficacy of practice. It can't be all rookies looking to get on a roster, anymore than you can expect to succeed with a very young offense or defense.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I agree that Belichick has had problems acquiring safeties and keeping them healthy. Ihedigbo was, and probably still is, a valuable commodity as a special teamer and #4 safety. Sergio was an OK special teamer that Belichick hoped would be better. However, the problem was not that these guys were terrible starters. They were never intended to be close to getting lots of reps on defense. Belichick didn't have enough quality at the top 3 safety positions AND there were two injuries that forced guys like this to start.

SPECIAL TEAMS

In addition, one of the reasons that Belichick is one of the greatest coaches ever is his attitude toward special teams. Special teams are important to Belichick.

First the specialists are important. Kickers are paid serious money. There is often competition for punter and long snapper. Belichick uses starters at returner (Welker, Brown, Edelman, Hobbs, and others).

Starters are often key players on the special teams units. Some teams are not willing to risk top players in these roles. In addition, Belichick keeps 2-7 players who are on the squad because they are special team "starters", key player son the special teams. Yes, these players are usually emergency players at their positions, but the hope is they never get on the field as position players. The patriots have had this philosophy for many years. We have always had at least a couple of players who are on the team as "special teams only" players. These players are NOT on the bubble. Guys like Slater have special team roster positions, and are often much more important and likely to make the team that the bottom 7 players. The bottom seven often do include special teamers, who are sometimes cut and re-signed several times during the year. But make no mistake. Belichick will often carry many players who primary function is special teams.

Posters disagree with belichick's approach to special teams every season. Every season, posters say that we cannot "afford" to carry a LB or S who are primarily special teamers. And, every year, Belichick disagrees.

THE CORE AND BOTTOM TEN POSITIONS
The bottom ten positions can be used for lots of things: position backups in case of injury, developmental players and special teams. To me, 43 roster players are needed in a addition to addition special teamers. These 43, plus additional special teamers, will get almost all the reps.

OFFFENSE (19)
QB (2)
WR (4)
RB (3)
FB (1)
TE (2)
OL (7)

DEFENSE (19)
DL (7)
LB (5)
CB (4)
S (3)

SPECIAL TEAMS (5)
K (1)
P (1)
LS (1)
ST (2)

The highest priority in the bottom 10 positions for winning a game, or winning this season is likely to be special teams. Then, we often have developmental players (including rookies). Position backups, in addition to what is included in the 43, is often 3rd in priority.

To put in another way, if the 43 positions above were filled, I would first add our top draft choices and then look to special teams. For example, the top 43 likely doesn't include a kick returner.

My light-hearted post has produced a more serious response than I expected and many of the points I'd make have already been made.

I don't need any lessons in what BB DOES and, of course, I'm thrilled that he is the coach of this team. In fact, never more so than last season when he responded to the most awful situation imaginable with the authority of a true leader.

But, that said, as we get older (BB, me, the Pissah) we tend to get more conservative. We have a lot of experience to draw on and we naturally see new situations in terms of things we've seen before. And we know not just that BB thinks Special Teams are valuable enough to have roster spots committed to them but how he sees the parts of it.

But it's arguable (and people on this thread have argued it) that the game has changed. Essentially, the kick-off can be eliminated if you have a kicker with a strong enough leg (the times that Gostkowski doesn't put the ball out of the endzone it seems to be only because he's aiming simultaneously for a long hang-time -- but, if your aim is just length, hang-time doesn't matter). So, assuming that the PAT is pretty much automatic, what remains is the punt.

We know that BB favours left-footed punters with long hang times. But is that the way to go? If you aim for the sidelines, you do, of course, have to kick it somewhat farther to get the same distance advanced, but you don't have to worry about a return or hang time. I've never understood why NFL teams don't do this. So it's not impossible to negate the punt return in the same way as the kick return.

But even if you don't want to take the radical route, there's still the question of whether the entirely predictable injuries shouldn't take precedence over marginal improvements in special teams. In what season have you NOT seen Eric Alexander, Pierre Woods, James Ihedigbo, Malcolm Williams, Antwaun Molden, Derrick Martin, Nate Ebner, Tracy White, etc., etc. on the field for the Patriots in serious defensive situations? And, of course, the games where they have been asked to step up have usually been the important ones at the end of the season.

So, with all due respect to the greatest coach in the NFL, it's reasonable to ask about the relative costs and benefits of the two approaches.

 

[mgteich]

Of course, we don't know who will be injured this year. So, your approach would be to put a much higher priority using the end of the roster spots on positional backups instead of special teamers. And you would have the strategy of having more fair catches by our returners. You would have our punter kick out of bounds.

There are NOT two approaches. The question in how many roster spots and cap money to spend on special teamers.

How many additional backups would you keep? At what positions? If you answer is only 2 or 3, then what you have done is to hurt the special teams with the offset being a guess with regard to who will be injured.

My light-hearted post has produced a more serious response than I expected and many of the points I'd make have already been made.

I don't need any lessons in what BB DOES and, of course, I'm thrilled that he is the coach of this team. In fact, never more so than last season when he responded to the most awful situation imaginable with the authority of a true leader.

But, that said, as we get older (BB, me, the Pissah) we tend to get more conservative. We have a lot of experience to draw on and we naturally see new situations in terms of things we've seen before. And we know not just that BB thinks Special Teams are valuable enough to have roster spots committed to them but how he sees the parts of it.

But it's arguable (and people on this thread have argued it) that the game has changed. Essentially, the kick-off can be eliminated if you have a kicker with a strong enough leg (the times that Gostkowski doesn't put the ball out of the endzone it seems to be only because he's aiming simultaneously for a long hang-time -- but, if your aim is just length, hang-time doesn't matter). So, assuming that the PAT is pretty much automatic, what remains is the punt.

We know that BB favours left-footed punters with long hang times. But is that the way to go? If you aim for the sidelines, you do, of course, have to kick it somewhat farther to get the same distance advanced, but you don't have to worry about a return or hang time. I've never understood why NFL teams don't do this. So it's not impossible to negate the punt return in the same way as the kick return.

But even if you don't want to take the radical route, there's still the question of whether the entirely predictable injuries shouldn't take precedence over marginal improvements in special teams. In what season have you NOT seen Eric Alexander, Pierre Woods, James Ihedigbo, Malcolm Williams, Antwaun Molden, Derrick Martin, Nate Ebner, Tracy White, etc., etc. on the field for the Patriots in serious defensive situations? And, of course, the games where they have been asked to step up have usually been the important ones at the end of the season.

So, with all due respect to the greatest coach in the NFL, it's reasonable to ask about the relative costs and benefits of the two approaches.

 

[supafly]

I think you are stretching a bit to make your point. Look at it through this lens.

1. Lets assume the Pats punt 5 times per game. Lets also assume that 3 of those punts each game will not be returned. (I think the number would be closer to 1 per game but lets be conservative). So Slater would have the opportunity to have an impact on 1-2 plays per game on the punt team.

2. Lets assume the Pats would KO and average of 5-6 times per game (which sounds right). So lets add another 1-2 plays where Slater would have the CHANCE to excel.

So in reality Slater, who is one of the best in the league at what he does, is now limited to 2-4 OPPORTUNITIES each game to have an impact.

3. Now if that's the case, is it fair to question whether we should keep a player, even one of the best in the league at what he does, with a $2MM cap hit, who is likely to have only 2-4 opportunities to make an impact on the game.

Now this is not Slater's fault. Before the rules changes, that number would have likely been 8-12 shots a game to make a difference. But again at 2-4, is his play THAT much better than a player who would likely be his replacement. Is his play going to add THAT much value or be THAT much better than a reserve WR/OL/DL/DB who might get more chances to impact the team over the course of the season on both ST's and regular O/D, than a "specialist".

Listen, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know for a fact that over the last few years ST's themselves have been devalued by the rules and the skills of the kicking specialists. Why is that such a hard concept to accept. We've had to accept the devaluation of LB's, FB's and RB's due to changes in the game, why is ST's teams exempt?

If BB has taught us anything, he is usually leading the way in adjusting to the way "things are" and usually is never caught up in relying on how things "used to be". Why should I believe that BB's well known love of all things special teams would keep him from making the adjustments we all see coming in that aspect of the game.

Special teams play use to be a way for marginal players to make a team and hopefully develop into more than marginal players. I think that avenue to the NFL is going to be harder to to find. On the other hand, back in the day a 4th or 5th WR wouldn't be an important cog in the receiving corps, and the 4th or 5th CB would rarely get any snaps. Now days those "marginal players"/reserves are getting more opportunities to get snaps on the regular O/D than they did

While I always appreciate your thoughts and generally tend to agree, I have a different view of the position you're taking--at least as it pertains to Slater specifically.

Slater is not going anywhere, possibly ever. Belichick values him not only on special teams, but also for his leadership ability and locker room presence. He is a team leader. Belichick has had him address the team in times of crisis, and even if you look past all of that--he's still a pro bowl talent at a position that Belichick appreciates tremendously.

Now...if you had said any other special teams only player aside from the specialists, then I would agree with you 100%. I think you have a nice point, but chose a poor example by using Slater specifically.

 

[supafly]

Of course, we don't know who will be injured this year. So, your approach would be to put a much higher priority using the end of the roster spots on positional backups instead of special teamers. And you would have the strategy of having more fair catches by our returners. You would have our punter kick out of bounds.

There are NOT two approaches. The question in how many roster spots and cap money to spend on special teamers.

How many additional backups would you keep? At what positions? If you answer is only 2 or 3, then what you have done is to hurt the special teams with the offset being a guess with regard to who will be injured.

We may as well sticky some of these threads as they relate to the importance of special teams play and how many players will make the squad. We go through this same exact exercise every single offseason.

There are THREE units on the football team, thus making the need for ST only players more important than many give credit to.

I absolutely agree that there's some grey area as it pertains to some of the lower special teams players vs. which depth/backup players may make it, so that's probably the main point here. I think we can safely assume a handful of special teams only players, not counting the specialists.

I can certainly appreciate the debate that there may be a lesser need for STOP, based on the rule changes. Whether or not Belichick agrees, is up to personal opinion. I also think that the majority of posters tend to go overboard with their assessments in terms of how many STOP we'd need less of. In the end, it may come down to one less ST only player than before.

 

[patchick]

I think you have a nice point, but chose a poor example by using Slater specifically.

Well said. Keeping a single player who is your respected special teams captain and one of the top gunners in the league is hardly a Belichick quirk; every team has room for a guy like that.

 

[patchick]

1. Lets assume the Pats punt 5 times per game. Lets also assume that 3 of those punts each game will not be returned. (I think the number would be closer to 1 per game but lets be conservative). So Slater would have the opportunity to have an impact on 1-2 plays per game on the punt team.

2. Lets assume the Pats would KO and average of 5-6 times per game (which sounds right). So lets add another 1-2 plays where Slater would have the CHANCE to excel.

So in reality Slater, who is one of the best in the league at what he does, is now limited to 2-4 OPPORTUNITIES each game to have an impact.

3. Now if that's the case, is it fair to question whether we should keep a player, even one of the best in the league at what he does, with a $2MM cap hit, who is likely to have only 2-4 opportunities to make an impact on the game.

Ken, it looks like you've just defined Slater's position solely as "gunner" and skipped over his role on return teams. Plus your definition of "impact" doesn't include the impact the ST captain makes in repositioning players, guiding fair catch decisions, etc. In fact, check this out...

The more you're right about tipping the balance away from special teams in roster bubble decisions, the more you need Matthew Slater.

If you're fielding an ST corps made up of players with less teams focus and expertise than in the past, the "coach on the field" ST captain becomes all the more important to coordinate the potential keystone cops.

 

[patfanken]

Well said. Keeping a single player who is your respected special teams captain and one of the top gunners in the league is hardly a Belichick quirk; every team has room for a guy like that.

.....yet the question remains. Is it worth a $2MM/yr cap hit for a "respected special teams captain and one of the top gunners in the league" IF the guy is only going to get a 2-4 opportunities a game to make an impact. And remember those are just "opportunities" to make an impact. You can't expect a player to make an impact just because he gets a chance.

Sup stated in a recent post that "there ARE 3 units on the football team". And there WAS a time where I would agree wholeheartedly. But I'm questioning whether that time has changed.

Think about it. Not only are their rules changes that have almost removed the KO return from the game, there are other rule changes that keep defenses from attacking the snapper, overloading one side, using another player to get vertical to blk a kick, etc. All these changes make FG's and punts more effective. Talk about extra points being automatic. 45 yd FG's are made close to 90% of the time. Its almost impossible to block a kick these days.

So having a great place kicker, punter, and snapper IS important. But a gunner? Your team is literally littered with reserve WR's and DB's who are tough skilled players who run sub 4.5 40's. Are you telling me you couldn't find 2 guys out of all those, who can also play gunner for the one or 2 punts that are actually going to be returned per game?

When there was a time when 5 or 6 punts would be returned each game as well as an equal number of KO's. Those were the days when a specialist like Slater could thrive.

BTW- it would help this discussion if we had some hard numbers on the numbers on punts, punt returns, KO returns and such. I'm just using anecdotal observations and could be talking out of my ass. I was hoping a stat geek (you out there B6) could confirm or debunk my hypothesis.

Finally, I don't think that BB should spend any less time on practicing special teams situations. I don't think he should place any less of an imperative on getting great play from our kicking game. What I am questioning is whether the days of being able to afford to keep roster spots open for players who ONLY play on special teams is over (obviously that excludes snappers and kickers)

So for that reason, Sup and PC, Slater is the perfect example, because he is a ST specialist who is very good at what he does....but is it enough to reserve a roster spot that that kind of exclusive player? I'm not sure any more. Maybe I'll wake up next week and feel differently.

 

[zydecochris]

As an aside, it is threads like this that keep me coming back to this forum. Ken introduces what I think everyone would agree is an interesting hypothesis (whether or not you agree with it) regarding whether pure special teamers are as important nowadays with the decreasing importance of the kicking game, and there are reasoned arguments on both sides. If only all of the threads were like this one.

.....yet the question remains. Is it worth a $2MM/yr cap hit for a "respected special teams captain and one of the top gunners in the league" IF the guy is only going to get a 2-4 opportunities a game to make an impact. And remember those are just "opportunities" to make an impact. You can't expect a player to make an impact just because he gets a chance.

Sup stated in a recent post that "there ARE 3 units on the football team". And there WAS a time where I would agree wholeheartedly. But I'm questioning whether that time has changed.

Think about it. Not only are their rules changes that have almost removed the KO return from the game, there are other rule changes that keep defenses from attacking the snapper, overloading one side, using another player to get vertical to blk a kick, etc. All these changes make FG's and punts more effective. Talk about extra points being automatic. 45 yd FG's are made close to 90% of the time. Its almost impossible to block a kick these days.

So having a great place kicker, punter, and snapper IS important. But a gunner? Your team is literally littered with reserve WR's and DB's who are tough skilled players who run sub 4.5 40's. Are you telling me you couldn't find 2 guys out of all those, who can also play gunner for the one or 2 punts that are actually going to be returned per game?

When there was a time when 5 or 6 punts would be returned each game as well as an equal number of KO's. Those were the days when a specialist like Slater could thrive.

BTW- it would help this discussion if we had some hard numbers on the numbers on punts, punt returns, KO returns and such. I'm just using anecdotal observations and could be talking out of my ass. I was hoping a stat geek (you out there B6) could confirm or debunk my hypothesis.

Finally, I don't think that BB should spend any less time on practicing special teams situations. I don't think he should place any less of an imperative on getting great play from our kicking game. What I am questioning is whether the days of being able to afford to keep roster spots open for players who ONLY play on special teams is over (obviously that excludes snappers and kickers)

So for that reason, Sup and PC, Slater is the perfect example, because he is a ST specialist who is very good at what he does....but is it enough to reserve a roster spot that that kind of exclusive player? I'm not sure any more. Maybe I'll wake up next week and feel differently.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

.....yet the question remains....
When there was a time when 5 or 6 punts would be returned each game as well as an equal number of KO's. Those were the days when a specialist like Slater could thrive.

BTW- it would help this discussion if we had some hard numbers on the numbers on punts, punt returns, KO returns and such. I'm just using anecdotal observations and could be talking out of my ass. I was hoping a stat geek (you out there B6) could confirm or debunk my hypothesis.

It would also be worth looking at the proportion of such plays in colder playoff weather, when a single loss ends your season. In New England, kickoffs get returned a lot more in December than September, although Ghost is doing a pretty decent job of minimizing returns. Punts are a balance between punter and the coverage/return teams. If the punter puts the ball in play from his own half of the field, there's a decent chance of a return, and Slater stops a handful of those each game. Still, I'd think more rugby and Aussie rules players would get chances to show their ability to drop a ball on the white paint of the sideline as far downfield as possible, and those guys could make the gunner a position in name only.

 

[patfanken]

Ken, it looks like you've just defined Slater's position solely as "gunner" and skipped over his role on return teams. Plus your definition of "impact" doesn't include the impact the ST captain makes in repositioning players, guiding fair catch decisions, etc. In fact, check this out...

The more you're right about tipping the balance away from special teams in roster bubble decisions, the more you need Matthew Slater.

If you're fielding an ST corps made up of players with less teams focus and expertise than in the past, the "coach on the field" ST captain becomes all the more important to coordinate the potential keystone cops.

I understand what you are saying and you say it well. But think about it. How important is Slater's role on return teams when the ball is returned so rarely now.

 

[patfanken]

Just for curiosity, I checked Edelman's return stats for 2013. He had his most returns ever in a season 35, which is just over 2 returns a game. In those 35 efforts he had 4 returns over 20yds and one over 40. He also had 5 fumbles (BTW- one more than Ridley had in 178 touches, though I don't think he lost any)

This brings to mind ANOTHER stat question. I wonder how many times on KO returns and punt returns a penalty is called for holding or blocking in the back? It kind of makes you wonder if its worth the risk to return the ball at all.

Think about it. In Edelman's case in 35 return attempts there were 5 fumbles. Five real chances for a TO. Then lets estimate, there were around 7 penalties called. (a real number would help here) So would it be any wonder why a coach would demand fair catches when over 30% of the time he's likely to either lose the ball or lose yardage attempting a return.

I wonder how the KO stats work out. I wonder what the % is for the number of KO returns attempted to penalties, and compare it to the % of times a returned KO gets past the 30. It kind of makes you wonder why would anyone would EVER want to return a KO if there is a much greater percentage chance that I'd wind up starting my drive from the 10 rather than the 30.

Just speculating here, but think about it.

 

[Danger Zone]

Just for curiosity, I checked Edelman's return stats for 2013. He had his most returns ever in a season 35, which is just over 2 returns a game. In those 35 efforts he had 4 returns over 20yds and one over 40. He also had 5 fumbles (BTW- one more than Ridley had in 178 touches, though I don't think he lost any)

This brings to mind ANOTHER stat question. I wonder how many times on KO returns and punt returns a penalty is called for holding or blocking in the back? It kind of makes you wonder if its worth the risk to return the ball at all.

Think about it. In Edelman's case in 35 return attempts there were 5 fumbles. Five real chances for a TO. Then lets estimate, there were around 7 penalties called. (a real number would help here) So would it be any wonder why a coach would demand fair catches when over 30% of the time he's likely to either lose the ball or lose yardage attempting a return.

I wonder how the KO stats work out. I wonder what the % is for the number of KO returns attempted to penalties, and compare it to the % of times a returned KO gets past the 30. It kind of makes you wonder why would anyone would EVER want to return a KO if there is a much greater percentage chance that I'd wind up starting my drive from the 10 rather than the 30.

Just speculating here, but think about it.

In a kind of inverse apropos to both your points..

 

[Mike the Brit]

In a kind of inverse apropos to both your points..

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I can't see clips from that game enough. (By the way, Edelman was playing amazingly at that stage of the season -- and then got hurt the next week, I think.)

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Just for curiosity, I checked Edelman's return stats for 2013. He had his most returns ever in a season 35, which is just over 2 returns a game. In those 35 efforts he had 4 returns over 20yds and one over 40. He also had 5 fumbles (BTW- one more than Ridley had in 178 touches, though I don't think he lost any)

This brings to mind ANOTHER stat question. I wonder how many times on KO returns and punt returns a penalty is called for holding or blocking in the back? It kind of makes you wonder if its worth the risk to return the ball at all.

Think about it. In Edelman's case in 35 return attempts there were 5 fumbles. Five real chances for a TO. Then lets estimate, there were around 7 penalties called. (a real number would help here) So would it be any wonder why a coach would demand fair catches when over 30% of the time he's likely to either lose the ball or lose yardage attempting a return.

I wonder how the KO stats work out. I wonder what the % is for the number of KO returns attempted to penalties, and compare it to the % of times a returned KO gets past the 30. It kind of makes you wonder why would anyone would EVER want to return a KO if there is a much greater percentage chance that I'd wind up starting my drive from the 10 rather than the 30.

Just speculating here, but think about it.

Interesting.
What you're saying is what is the expected value of returning a KO or a punt?
I'd be shocked if BB's staff is not looking at it just this way.
If the probability of scoring or having great field position > probability of enemy scoring or getting great field position then you return kicks. Otherwise fair catch 'em all. I think the #s will say go for the return (given set parameters which the player telling the returner is responsible to assess, such as how many yards away the gunner is)

 

[PatsFan37]

Interesting.
What you're saying is what is the expected value of returning a KO or a punt?
I'd be shocked if BB's staff is not looking at it just this way.
If the probability of scoring or having great field position > probability of enemy scoring or getting great field position then you return kicks. Otherwise fair catch 'em all. I think the #s will say go for the return (given set parameters which the player telling the returner is responsible to assess, such as how many yards away the gunner is)

That's why these coaches never go home during the season. The special teams staff has to analyze all four units and decide the odds for so many different situations. I would imagine they've got general stats for each team, then they have to decide how the Patriots match up and whether they can make a play.

You'll hear a coach tell the press after, say, a failed run on 3rd and goal from the five, "why didn't you pass?" And the answer usually is, "we thought we could make a play." I take that at face value. They spend all week analyzing their opponent and then they watch the teams compete on Sunday, and by the end of the game, they think they've got a matchup they can exploit. It might be something the average fan or the mediots think is a dumb move, but the coaches see as an opportunity. And that's why sports radio makes me crazy. It isn't a simple game with simple answers.

Special teams return decisions are tougher, though, because it isn't as much a coach telling the player what to do. I'd like to know from others on the board - how much latitude does the returner have in deciding whether to fair catch or run?