Roster Allocation - Not A Discussion Of Players

[mgteich]

I think that we generally have our minimum numbers at the various positions and are having disagreements only with regard the very bottom of the roster. What are your priorities? In the end, especially for the last 3 positions, what matters is choosing the best player, independent of position.

For me, I put high priority on a 5th CB, a 5th LB and a 4th RB. These are my must haves. The last 3 can come from anywhere, and the choice will depend on lots of variables.

MINIMUM OFFENSE (22)
QB (2)
WR (4)
RB (3)
FB (1)
TE (2)
OL (8)
ST (2)

MINIMUM DEFENSE (22)
DL (8)
LB (4)
CB (4)
S (3)
ST (3)

SPECIALISTS (3)
P (1)
K (1)
LS (1)

VARIABLE ROSTER SPOTS (6)
There are champions for additional roster spots at almost every position, certainly the following 10. So, we get to choose players to fill 6 of the following 10 positions.
QB
WR
RB
TE
OL
DL
LB
CB
S
ST/LB

 

[supafly]

It may be easier to select the 4 positions that won’t use another spot, in which case I would say WR, TE, DL, and S.

 

[venecol]

I think that we generally have our minimum numbers at the various positions and are having disagreements only with regard the very bottom of the roster. What are your priorities? In the end, especially for the last 3 positions, what matters is choosing the best player, independent of position.

For me, I put high priority on a 5th CB, a 5th LB and a 4th RB. These are my must haves. The last 3 can come from anywhere, and the choice will depend on lots of variables.

MINIMUM OFFENSE (22)
QB (2)
WR (4)
RB (3)
FB (1)
TE (2)
OL (8)
ST (2)

MINIMUM DEFENSE (22)
DL (8)
LB (4)
CB (4)
S (3)
ST (3)

SPECIALISTS (3)
P (1)
K (1)
LS (1)

VARIABLE ROSTER SPOTS (6)
There are champions for additional roster spots at almost every position, certainly the following 10. So, we get to choose players to fill 6 of the following 10 positions.
QB
WR
RB
TE
OL
DL
LB
CB
S
ST/LB

QB - 3
WR - 5
RB/FB - 6
TE - 3
OL - 8
Offense: 25

DL - 9
LB - 5
DB - 8
Defense 22

ST - 3 (Slater, King, Ebner)
K/P - 3

 

[jah]

It may be easier to select the 4 positions that won’t use another spot, in which case I would say WR, TE, DL, and S.

My picks going this way would be to go minimum on QB, OL, DL and load up in the defensive backfield with diverse players who can cover anyone. This is with a perfect situation, however, which the Pats are far from.

I think you can get away with 8 OL when you have a solid interior backup who can cover all 3 positions as well as an 8th guy who can play G or T. DL is simpler- I just don't see as many on the field in this league anymore. You'd like both your backup and developmental QB to be the same guy, making a 3rd redundant.

 

[supafly]

My picks going this way would be to go minimum on QB, OL, DL and load up in the defensive backfield with diverse players who can cover anyone. This is with a perfect situation, however, which the Pats are far from.

I think you can get away with 8 OL when you have a solid interior backup who can cover all 3 positions as well as an 8th guy who can play G or T. DL is simpler- I just don't see as many on the field in this league anymore. You'd like both your backup and developmental QB to be the same guy, making a 3rd redundant.

I realize the hope is that Stidham can step up as the QB2, making Hoyer expendable, but I just don’t see that happening in his first year. If Stidham actually had to take over, our playcalling would be restricted in a big way. I think Belichick has kept a rookie as the backup one other time, so anything’s possible.

Normally, I’d agree with you about the OL, but I think we have a bit of a logjam and I don’t want to see too many prospects cut. At the moment, it’s Wynn, Thuney, Andrews, Mason, and Cannon—but you have the two draft picks + Veldheer = 8. I’d much rather keep a guy like Karras as the 9th OL, for the reasons that you provided. He’s experienced in our system and is able to play all 3 interior spots.

As far as the idea of only keeping 3 safeties, right off the bat we’d have a guy like Ebner as a ST position, plus you have the possibility of JMac, Williams, and potentially even Dawson as backups. I’m certainly with you in terms of keeping as many DBs as possible, though. For the record and as it stands right now without injuries, I think 6 CBs would make it.

 

[DarrylS]

I realize the hope is that Stidham can step up as the QB2, making Hoyer expendable, but I just don’t see that happening in his first year. If Stidham actually had to take over, our playcalling would be restricted in a big way. I think Belichick has kept a rookie as the backup one other time, so anything’s possible.
.

If Ettling is progressing as we have been told, Hoyer may be the 4th guy out.. OTOH Hoyer has shown he can run an offense, but not up to the standard we are accustomed to..

The call on Stidham is premature and much will be found out in TC...

 

[mgteich]

Brooks may also be an emergency safety.

I realize the hope is that Stidham can step up as the QB2, making Hoyer expendable, but I just don’t see that happening in his first year. If Stidham actually had to take over, our playcalling would be restricted in a big way. I think Belichick has kept a rookie as the backup one other time, so anything’s possible.

Normally, I’d agree with you about the OL, but I think we have a bit of a logjam and I don’t want to see too many prospects cut. At the moment, it’s Wynn, Thuney, Andrews, Mason, and Cannon—but you have the two draft picks + Veldheer = 8. I’d much rather keep a guy like Karras as the 9th OL, for the reasons that you provided. He’s experienced in our system and is able to play all 3 interior spots.

As far as the idea of only keeping 3 safeties, right off the bat we’d have a guy like Ebner as a ST position, plus you have the possibility of JMac, Williams, and potentially even Dawson as backups. I’m certainly with you in terms of keeping as many DBs as possible, though. For the record and as it stands right now without injuries, I think 6 CBs would make it.

 

[jah]

I realize the hope is that Stidham can step up as the QB2, making Hoyer expendable, but I just don’t see that happening in his first year. If Stidham actually had to take over, our playcalling would be restricted in a big way. I think Belichick has kept a rookie as the backup one other time, so anything’s possible.

Normally, I’d agree with you about the OL, but I think we have a bit of a logjam and I don’t want to see too many prospects cut. At the moment, it’s Wynn, Thuney, Andrews, Mason, and Cannon—but you have the two draft picks + Veldheer = 8. I’d much rather keep a guy like Karras as the 9th OL, for the reasons that you provided. He’s experienced in our system and is able to play all 3 interior spots.

As far as the idea of only keeping 3 safeties, right off the bat we’d have a guy like Ebner as a ST position, plus you have the possibility of JMac, Williams, and potentially even Dawson as backups. I’m certainly with you in terms of keeping as many DBs as possible, though. For the record and as it stands right now without injuries, I think 6 CBs would make it.

All of what I said only matters under perfect conditions, which as I mentioned, we are far from. I doubt we go with 2 QB this year, for starters.

 

[bellsfangb]

I'm in the camp of keeping 2 QBs this season if Stidham shows anything in camp, especially if Hoyer is a candidate for the "shadow roster." (impossible for us to know, I realize)

We got a glimpse of the Pats thinking here a couple years ago when Brissett (injured thumb) was forced to start against the Bills with Jimmy G hurt and Brady suspended. Brissett did nothing but hand the ball off, the Bills shut the Pats out, and the following week Brady was back, so BB essentially punted the game.

The Pats could/would follow a similar plan if Brady got hurt and Stidham relieved him; manage the rest of the game and Hoyer is your starter the next week.

 

[mgteich]

Hoyer is guaranteed his salary. There is no reason for him to be on a "shadow roster" (there is no such thing IMO). If Hoyer wants to play this year, he can sign for any team that WANTS him for vet minimum pay and have the patriots pay the rest. To repeat, if the patriots don't want Hoyer, he can choose where he wants to play, if at all.

I'm in the camp of keeping 2 QBs this season if Stidham shows anything in camp, especially if Hoyer is a candidate for the "shadow roster." (impossible for us to know, I realize)

We got a glimpse of the Pats thinking here a couple years ago when Brissett (injured thumb) was forced to start against the Bills with Jimmy G hurt and Brady suspended. Brissett did nothing but hand the ball off, the Bills shut the Pats out, and the following week Brady was back, so BB essentially punted the game.

The Pats could/would follow a similar plan if Brady got hurt and Stidham relieved him; manage the rest of the game and Hoyer is your starter the next week.

 

[stinkypete]

Hoyer is guaranteed his salary. There is no reason for him to be on a "shadow roster" (there is no such thing IMO). If Hoyer wants to play this year, he can sign for any team that WANTS him for vet minimum pay and have the patriots pay the rest. To repeat, if the patriots don't want Hoyer, he can choose where he wants to play, if at all.

Don't discount Hoyer's role running the scout team. He was given a good deal of credit for his ability to understand and replicate Goff's game.

 

[Taco]

Hoyer stays. Stidham gets a paper cut and is placed on IR. Done

 

[Hyped]

I am sure the team (and all of us) have an ideal number for each position in mind....but this is a fool's errand, IMO. Injuries will decide most of these allocations....not to mention who the team *thinks* they could sneak onto the PS later vs. what other teams have at the bottom of their rosters. For example, we could cut a core ST'er at the 53 day cut down....and re-sign the guy a week before the opener. In addition, the Pats even go with 51-52 guys on cut down day sometimes...