Two Major Issues Have Been Solved

[RayClay]

Yeah, that's why I said I wasn't sure I understod your post.

 

[maineman209]

Yeah, that's why I said I wasn't sure I understod your post.

Well, that makes two of us.

And, possibly many more, now that I think about it.

 

[maust]

I copied it to my notepad to respond to DI's next ludicrous assault on one of my posts.

If it makes you feel better then by all means paste it right on in. Just know that it will only be followed by an even more ludicrous yet self important assault and a thoroughly misplaced but nonetheless condescending in tone declaration of victory.

 

[supafly]

Hill is one of those players where you can see a good player if you squint really hard, and this board has been doing a ton of squinting since the Patriots signed him. If you asked the board about him the day before he was signed, people would have said he wasn't very good. If the Patriots draft a running back, he probably won't even make the team. He's just a dart throw.

Could come down to Hill vs. Gilleslee for that vet RB spot. I think a RB will be chosen during the draft, and that will send one of them packing.

 

[primetime]

Could come down to Hill vs. Gilleslee for that vet RB spot. I think a RB will be chosen during the draft, and that will send one of them packing.

It sends both packing, unless you think they'll keep 5 RBs. Bolden's spot seems relatively secure and Burkhead and White are locks.

 

[PScottman]

I think it only makes sense that if someone is going to register a "dislike" or "disagree," they should follow up with a post explaining why.

I offer the following political answer in a non-political forum - I clicked "Like" before I clicked "Dislike".

 

[PScottman]

the pats are substantially weaker now than they were at the end of the superbowl

I get the "words matter" meme shoved in my face a lot at work these days, which in the hyper-partisan DC area should shock no one, so in that light would counter "substantially" with "potentially".

Every season evolves differently from injury distribution (across the league), chemistry of new acquisitions, scheme fit, etc. I mean who saw a playoffs with Rams, Vikes, Eagles and Jags...at the same time...last year?

Yep, losing the LT and lead RB...those are not inconsequential losses, but neither are they guarantees of anything except they'll be wearing another team's jersey next year.

 

[maineman209]

It sends both packing, unless you think they'll keep 5 RBs. Bolden's spot seems relatively secure and Burkhead and White are locks.

The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden last season.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden in 2016 (DJ Foster was #4).
... skipping the injury free-for-all of 2015
The Pats had FIVE RBs plus Bolden in 2014.
... Vereen, Ridley, Gray, Blount & White.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden in 2013.
... back when Bolden was still a regular part of the RB rotation. They cut #5, Leon Washington, after 2 games, though, so they ended up with four.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden 2012.
... similar to 2012, but with Lex Hilliard as the #5, cut after 2 games, so they again ended up with only four.

 

[mgteich]

I'm fine with 4 RB's if we are have 3 QB's. If this is the case, I would expect to also have one or even two on the Practice Squad.

The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden last season.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden in 2016 (DJ Foster was #4).
... skipping the injury free-for-all of 2015
The Pats had FIVE RBs plus Bolden in 2014.
... Vereen, Ridley, Gray, Blount & White.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden in 2013.
... back when Bolden was still a regular part of the RB rotation. They cut #5, Leon Washington, after 2 games, though, so they ended up with four.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden 2012.
... similar to 2012, but with Lex Hilliard as the #5, cut after 2 games, so they again ended up with only four.

 

[maineman209]

I'm fine with 4 RB's if we are have 3 QB's. If this is the case, I would expect to also have one or even two on the Practice Squad.

I wasn'tnecessairily advocating for 4 RBs + Bolden, just noting that it's been a recent precedent more often than not.

I was responding to a hypothesis that a rookie RB could knock both Hill and Gillislee off the roster "unless you think that that the Pats would keep four RBs plus Bolden."

OTOH, the rate at which Pats RBs seem to get injured makes me a bit uncomfortable about going with just three plus Bolden unless there are a couple really decent ones in reserve on the PS. Of course, the problem then is getting those decent RBs past waivers.

 

[maust]

OTOH, the rate at which Pats RBs seem to get injured makes me a bit uncomfortable about going with just three plus Bolden unless there are a couple really decent ones in reserve on the PS. Of course, the problem then is getting those decent RBs past waivers.

Not only would a decent RB need to clear waivers to get to the PS but it's not like having them there is any guarantee they will stay there, once on the PS they are still free for the taking. The injury rate at the position isn't exactly unique to the Pats. Something the 'park 'em on the PS' crowd tends to forget.

 

[PittPatriot]

It sends both packing, unless you think they'll keep 5 RBs. Bolden's spot seems relatively secure and Burkhead and White are locks.

I think you have to keep 5 unless you can guarantee health (Rex is glass, White is due for an injury based on age and probability) and performance (Hill is an unknown and Gilleslee is decent at best).
Bolden getting more than 20 carries on the year should be a “break glass in case of emergency” situation.
Hopefully, a rookie will fall to us.

 

[maineman209]

I think you have to keep 5 unless you can guarantee health (Rex is glass, White is due for an injury based on age and probability) and performance (Hill is an unknown and Gilleslee is decent at best).
Bolden getting more than 20 carries on the year should be a “break glass in case of emergency” situation.
Hopefully, a rookie will fall to us.

Not sure why "Rex is glass". In his four previous seasons with Cinci, he missed only three games total to injury. His "major" injury with the Pats last season was bruised (cracked?) ribs, which isn't likely to be a chronic thing.

 

[RayClay]

The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden last season.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden in 2016 (DJ Foster was #4).
... skipping the injury free-for-all of 2015
The Pats had FIVE RBs plus Bolden in 2014.
... Vereen, Ridley, Gray, Blount & White.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden in 2013.
... back when Bolden was still a regular part of the RB rotation. They cut #5, Leon Washington, after 2 games, though, so they ended up with four.
The Pats had four RBs plus Bolden 2012.
... similar to 2012, but with Lex Hilliard as the #5, cut after 2 games, so they again ended up with only four.

I wonder if the 2005 Corey Dillon situation caused BB to value depth at more RB. I think Faulk and Dillon were hurt and they had nobody, so Dillon played the remainder of the season on one leg, hitting the line sideways like he was on a pogo stick.

Sure, they beat Buffalo and some other games, but probably shortened the useful career of Dillon by two years and cost him the hall of fame. Check the stats, two fair to good Dillon years and he would have passed 7 or 8 hall of fame backs and tey would have had to put him in, even though the writers didn't like him. Black mark on BB for me.

 

[maineman209]

I wonder if the 2005 Corey Dillon situation caused BB to value depth at more RB. I think Faulk and Dillon were hurt and they had nobody, so Dillon played the remainder of the season on one leg, hitting the line sideways like he was on a pogo stick.

Sure, they beat Buffalo and some other games, but probably shortened the useful career of Dillon by two years and cost him the hall of fame. Check the stats, two fair to good Dillon years and he would have passed 7 or 8 hall of fame backs and tey would have had to put him in, even though the writers didn't like him. Black mark on BB for me.

Maybe he began to see more value in having a number of roughly equivalent "decent" RBs running behind strong blocking than in relying on (and trying to find) one or two "star" RBs who could "create on their own".

It's fascinating trying to reverse-engineer the evolution of BB's perception of his RB group.

I imagine that the way Maroney turned out influenced his thinking about spending draft capital on the RB position (only three drafted since). And then Ridley's seemingly incurable ball security issues may have added another item to his list of things he doesn't want to have to spend time "fixing" anymore.

 

[RayClay]

Maybe he began to see more value in having a number of roughly equivalent "decent" RBs running behind strong blocking than in relying on (and trying to find) one or two "star" RBs who could "create on their own".

I wouldn't go that far. I'm sure if a Corey Dillon was on the team, someone would go packing.

In fact, we're back to my middling comment. Depth without strength is nothing, but Dillon was one of three RBs and the one they picked up also got injured. Even a Bolden on special teams wasn't available. Having an affordable all time great RB wasn't the problem.

Dillon's resolve solved a few offensive problems - The Boston Globe

 

[RayClay]

The running back position, in general, has decreased in value, so decent RBs are available lower, but a bottom of the round pick isn't real expensive either. He probably goes for value now. Young legs.

 

[maineman209]

I wouldn't go that far. I'm sure if a Corey Dillon was on the team, someone would go packing.

In fact, we're back to my middling comment. Depth without strength is nothing, but Dillon was one of three RBs and the one they picked up also got injured. Even a Bolden on special teams wasn't available. Having an affordable all time great RB wasn't the problem.

Dillon's resolve solved a few offensive problems - The Boston Globe

Agree about Dillon. It's also maybe worth noting that he'd been a very productive receiving back before coming to the Pats (1482 yards in seven seasons with Cinci).

"Depth without strength is nothing..."

That clarifies for me what you were getting at with the term "middling". But I also think that the practical definition of "strength" may have changed a bit in the "Post-passing-explosion Era".

Since around 2007-2009, the Pats ground game seems to be averaging fewer carries and yards than it did pre-2007, and with those carries spread out among more participants (most of the time). And yet their rankings in carries, yards and TDs relative to the rest of the league hasn't really changed very much.

They're still regularly in, or very close to, the top ten in yards, carries, etc., and usually in the top 6 in rushing TDs. They're just achieving it in a different (perhaps more resilient and versatile) way that's maybe more compatible with the defenses that have been created to deal with that passing explosion?

 

[RayClay]

Agree about Dillon. It's also maybe worth noting that he'd been a very productive receiving back before coming to the Pats (1482 yards in seven seasons with Cinci).

"Depth without strength is nothing..."

That clarifies for me what you were getting at with the term "middling". But I also think that the practical definition of "strength" may have changed a bit in the "Post-passing-explosion Era".

Since around 2007-2009, the Pats ground game seems to be averaging fewer carries and yards than it did pre-2007, and with those carries spread out among more participants (most of the time). And yet their rankings in carries, yards and TDs relative to the rest of the league hasn't really changed very much.

They're still regularly in, or very close to, the top ten in yards, carries, etc., and usually in the top 6 in rushing TDs. They're just achieving it in a different (perhaps more resilient and versatile) way that's maybe more compatible with the defenses that have been created to deal with that passing explosion?

They are going for affordable alternating parts. White doesn't need to be a great runner cause he can catch. Burkhead doesn't need to be great, cause he's decent at both. That leaves one guy who's either more dynamic [Dion] or more powerful [Blount or Hill] than the rest. Gillislie either becomes that guy or he's a backup without a starter. They need one guy as default RB, not a star, but not a JAG.

 

[supafly]

It sends both packing, unless you think they'll keep 5 RBs. Bolden's spot seems relatively secure and Burkhead and White are locks.

I think that would be something that would be determined at the end of the summer, and certainly not before.

If we take a rookie RB in the draft and he looks good enough to remove two veterans from the roster, Belichick would be pleased. It would not only save money, but it would save a roster spot.

You and I seem to disagree on how to include some of the special teams only players, because Bolden obviously isn’t going to produce anything. Your proposal would actually leave us with 3 RBs: a rookie, Burkhead, and James White. I’m definitely not seeing that as much of a possibility.