Will We Get Any Production From Branch, Allen or Harris?

[Ring 6]

You are right AJ, we need depth and there are better players. The issue was that they tried to give him a bigger role but was outplayed for it. He earned this backup role it wasn't given to him. With that said I don't mind him there at all, he's still ok but not great.

Right. My point is

1) whatever "hope" there was when he was signed is irrelevant
2) He clearly made the team as the #3 ILB and in this defense snaps are almost non existent for a #3 ILB if there are no injuries
3) since he made the team nothing has changed

This is all pretty much indisputable.
Some people however insist on spending their time trying to find someone to trash.

 

[aluminum seats]

I'm not conceding a point that i am right about.
Why would I? You have said absolutely nothing that would influence my viewpoint in fact all you are doing is misstating my viewpoint.

What exactly do you think you're right about? It would be fascinating to hear.

 

[Ring 6]

What exactly do you think you're right about? It would be fascinating to hear.

I just posted the exact points I have been making. It's one post above yours.

Feel free to try to find something wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

What exactly do you think you're right about? It would be fascinating to hear.

And secondly that no players are allowed to "not do things they don't want to" and making a statement that high paid players aren't allowed to "not do things they don't want to" in the English language means you are applying this to only high paid players and not all players.

 

[aluminum seats]

And secondly that no players are allowed to "not do things they don't want to" and making a statement that high paid players aren't allowed to "not do things they don't want to" in the English language means you are applying this to only high paid players and not all players.

I made two posts. I said:

-- It isn't an unreasonable question to ask whether a guy who plays a snap or two a game might be replaced by someone who would contribute more than that.

You started off with the classic lame response of "If you know someone better let's look," which is just a half step away from asking somebody, "could you do better??" if they criticize a player. Then you made the inane comparison of a linebacker not playing to a backup quarterback not playing.

I then said, looking to mercifully end it, that if you thought the Pats signed Harris with the expectation he would never play, we would have to agree to disagree. Bizarrely, that wasn't enough for you and on it goes.

The second post you're struggling with is even weirder, as I said I wouldn't excuse a lack of effort on Branch's part because he's a well paid football player. You said effort should be expected on all players on the roster, which of course is true, and I noted that those points obviously AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE NOR PARTICULARLY DIFFERENT. Because they aren't. Newsflash, EVERY player on the roster is handsomely compensated, and lack of effort shouldn't be tolerated.

Neither of the points should be confusing or controversial to any neutral, sane observer. But on you go, with your refusal to perpetually continue being psychologically fascinating, if more than a little sad.

 

[Ring 6]

I made two posts. I said:

-- It isn't an unreasonable question to ask whether a guy who plays a snap or two a game might be replaced by someone who would contribute more than that.

You started off with the classic lame response of "If you know someone better let's look," which is just a half step away from asking somebody, "could you do better??" if they criticize a player. Then you made the inane comparison of a linebacker not playing to a backup quarterback not playing.

So the issue is you reading something into my comment that isn't there?

I literally described his role and said of someone better was available I'd want to replace him.

Harris had a role in this team that is very similar so far to a backup QB or OL.
BB feels he needs depth at ILB. We generally play 1 and sometimes play 2 and there has been no PT for a 3rd.
That doesn't make the role unnecessary.

I then said, looking to mercifully end it, that if you thought the Pats signed Harris with the expectation he would never play, we would have to agree to disagree. Bizarrely, that wasn't enough for you and on it goes.

Because you know that isn't my opinion. Purposely misstating my opinion and saying you agree to disagree is exactly how these type of exchanges happen.

The second post you're struggling with is even weirder, as I said I wouldn't excuse a lack of effort on Branch's part because he's a well paid football player. You said effort should be expected on all players on the roster, which of course is true, and I noted that those points obviously AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE NOR PARTICULARLY DIFFERENT. Because they aren't. Newsflash, EVERY player on the roster is handsomely compensated, and lack of effort shouldn't be tolerated.

Then why argue? Just agree "highly paid" was an unnecessary qualifier that cunfused the point you were trying to make. See how easy that is?

Neither of the points should be confusing or controversial to any neutral, sane observer. But on you go, with your refusal to perpetually continue being psychologically fascinating, if more than a little sad.

Your first point ignores the role Harris has.
I believe my first point was that you are saying you want to get rid of the role not the player if you are arguing get rid of Harris.
This is because he has not done anything good or bad since earning the role to tell us whether he should be replaced.
I continued to say if someone is better ada3td ILB who won't play go ahead and get them.
This is all clear and obvious.

Your second point truly was just a case of you saying something wrong and being unwilling to correct it after I (and others) pointed it out. Instead you chose to dance around silliness like "not mutually exclusive".

This should have ended long ago but something tells me you will keep it going even further.[/quote]

 

[Oswlek]

Regarding Branch, I don't hold 350 [? ] pound linemen to the same standard as a 180 lb slot receiver as far as being in shape/motivation. We are spoiled by the amazing Vince Wilfork in that regard. I think all 350-400 pound athletes struggle at times. Imagine, if you feel good or bad, you still have to lug that amount of weight, or even stand on it with your feet and legs. Branch was a decent tackle his first year or so just because of his size, a great one due to health/motivation the last couple.

If we don't use Branch, we'll need to find something like him and good luck with that. BB actually has said that athletic big men are the most valuable because they are so had to find. Without Branch, the dropoff to Brown is tremendous, the dropoff after that is basically keeping an extra player in and distorting the defense. They don't have two giants without Branch and Valentine and probably not one.

Out of curiosity, who is expecting Branch to move and act as a 180lber? All complaints I'm aware of - including the coach's - seem perfectly aware of Branch's size. It's that he has been disappointing and out of shape even by that standard.

 

[JayNM]

yes
no
no

 

[aluminum seats]

I literally described his role and said of someone better was available I'd want to replace him.

Then rewind yourself back to your "if you know somebody better..." and stop typing, as that was the only point to begin with.

That doesn't make the role unnecessary.

Nobody said it was.

Because you know that isn't my opinion.

What wasn't your opinion, lol. You get so lost in syntactical pasta you could say anything is your opinion. You are, charitably, not a good writer.

Then why argue? Just agree "highly paid" was an unnecessary qualifier that cunfused the point you were trying to make. See how easy that is?

Why argue? You're the one yipping at my heels like a puppy. "Highly paid," which football players are, was the point, so hardly unnecessary. I think you're the one who's "cunfused."

Your first point ignores the role Harris has.

No it doesn't.

I believe my first point was that you are saying you want to get rid of the role not the player if you are arguing get rid of Harris.

I wasn't "arguing to get rid of Harris," I said it wasn't unreasonable to ask if another player would be better suited to the role. Reading is fundamental, Andy.

I continued to say if someone is better ada3td ILB who won't play go ahead and get them.

Quoting this to illustrate your sloppy writing, which flows from sloppy thinking.

This is all clear and obvious.

In your mind, frighteningly, perhaps it is.

Your second point truly was just a case of you saying something wrong and being unwilling to correct it

You are truly delusional. Black is white, white is black.

Instead you chose to dance around silliness like "not mutually exclusive".

It's telling that something so straightforward as two points not being mutually exclusive (nor particularly different) would confound you so much that this would be your response.

This should have ended long ago but something tells me you will keep it going even further.

I can only assume you said this while gazing at a mirror.

 

[Angelpats]

Bull sh.t

Calling for heads to roll is a constant feature of this board. Almost all of this roster would be long gone, even Brady, if the crybaby biatch “Patriot fans” had their way. Christian Hackenberg would be at QB and Tavon Austin would be in the slot ............

There are some that appreciate a good discussion. Those you describe are the irrational types that think we lost the game in the first quarter after an incompletion.

 

[Bcc66duece]

I will say Harris looked really slow in the joint practices in WV. I didn't know what number he was and kept seeing 45 getting burnt by RB's and I figured it was some undrafted guy but a guy near me notified me it was Harris.

 

[Tony2046]

Ok then who would?
Langi isn't even active should he be cut?
53 man rosters have guys that are 44-53 and don't see much field.
Cutting a guy off the 53 because he is 49 (or 50,51,52,53) just means you replace him with a different 49.
If you know someone better let's look. At this point BB doesn't think there is.
If Harris role was the 4th LB in a defense that plays 2 and once in a while a 3rd the fact that we haven't needed the 4th yet doesn't mean he isn't filling the role he made the team for effectively.

It's like saying cut your backup infielder when you start the season with all your infielders healthy and playing every inning.

I'm not sure what the issue, if any, with Harris is but to your 44-53 point most of those guys contribute on special teams. So they usually do see the field.

Going over the snap count totals (including Special Teams) for LB's over the last 5 seasons Harris ranks second to last in total snap count percentage. But it's still early in the season and his role could change significantly.

New England Patriots 2017 Snap Counts | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Edit to add: At some point during the season. It's only week five.

 

[RayClay]

Out of curiosity, who is expecting Branch to move and act as a 180lber? All complaints I'm aware of - including the coach's - seem perfectly aware of Branch's size. It's that he has been disappointing and out of shape even by that standard.

No one is expecting that. Why is this so hard to understand? Every time a guy like that moves, his feet and bones have to carry 370 lbs. He has two feet, same as Amendola. Any physics majors out there? This can't be that hard to understand.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I'm not sure what the issue, if any, with Harris is but to your 44-53 point most of those guys contribute on special teams. So they usually do see the field.

Going over the snap count totals (including Special Teams) for LB's over the last 5 seasons Harris ranks second to last in total snap count percentage. But it's still early in the season and his role could change significantly.

New England Patriots 2017 Snap Counts | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Out of the 53 it is 46 players active on gameday (46, 47?? Mind is going ). The inactive players are, in effect, a group of backups to the backups. And it is more complex than just cutting one of these players who are inactive/disappointing:

Is there a better option to replace the, in effect, a backup to the backup? Keep in mind a new player will bring a significant level of uncertainty as well as an unfamiliarity with the playbook.
Does the new player have a plausibly better upside if he is needed on the active list?
Very important, if Harris is cut and a replacement brought in, what is the bottom line cost?

I believe to replace Harris with a non vet minimum would be about 2+ million (1.25 million in guaranteed money for Harris + new guy salary). Will the new guy be a 2+ million dollar improvement?

Look I'm not saying Harris isn't worthy of being cut (he might be). What I am saying is that we do need an inactive list, a group of backups to the backups. Then when factoring in the cost -- and all the rest -- maybe Harris is good enough for the place on the depth chart he is at, a place the Patriots need a player to be in?

But forget all that. There's a bigger issue here and that is Harris came to the Patriots with multi season 16 game starter experience and an expectation he would be a noted contributor. But, IMHO, unlike Branch and Allen who I think can and will contribute, a guy like Harris being this far down the chart from day 1 reeks of '100% bust signing'. Hope I'm wrong...

 

[Angelpats]

The inactive list usually includes our injured players too. We had six starters on it during the saints game and three vs Tampa. Every coach in their right mind wants to have a contributing player. They don't sign people to be backups of backups. Those players earn that spot.

 

[Tony2046]

Out of the 53 it is 46 players active on gameday (46, 47?? Mind is going ). The inactive players are, in effect, a group of backups to the backups. And it is more complex than just cutting one of these players who are inactive/disappointing:

Is there a better option to replace the, in effect, a backup to the backup? Keep in mind a new player will bring a significant level of uncertainty as well as an unfamiliarity with the playbook.
Does the new player have a plausibly better upside if he is needed on the active list?
Very important, if Harris is cut and a replacement brought in, what is the bottom line cost?

I believe to replace Harris with a non vet minimum would be about 2+ million (1.25 million in guaranteed money for Harris + new guy salary). Will the new guy be a 2+ million dollar improvement?

Look I'm not saying Harris isn't worthy of being cut (he might be). What I am saying is that we do need an inactive list, a group of backups to the backups. Then when factoring in the cost -- and all the rest -- maybe Harris is good enough for the place on the depth chart he is at, a place the Patriots need a player to be in?

But forget all that. There's a bigger issue here and that is Harris came to the Patriots with multi season 16 game starter experience and an expectation he would be a noted contributor. But, IMHO, unlike Branch and Allen who I think can and will contribute, a guy like Harris being this far down the chart from day 1 reeks of '100% bust signing'. Hope I'm wrong...

It's an interesting situation. He has played 7 snaps. I would have thought he would have had more by now if only in a rotational basis. Give some guys a rest but for whatever reason he hasn't. Andy could be right and it's only because he's a backup.

To clarify the snap counts data. I didn't dig in to the results too deep so there could be multiple reasons for the results. One major factor being that I didn't calculate the snap counts for each LB during only the first five weeks of each season.

 

[luuked]

It will never get old how everyone assumes that just because players dont play on a Sunday they are not contributing to the team.

Sunday might be the only outlet we have to see the team but you guys are surely aware that they practice, prepare and mentor for another 5 days a week. Just because as a fan you dont see a contribution doesnt mean it is not there and a player should just be cut.

 

[Mack Herron]

Reiss on Harris:

It’s hard to imagine this is the way Belichick saw it unfolding when the team guaranteed Harris $1.25 million this offseason.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It will never get old how everyone assumes that just because players dont play on a Sunday they are not contributing to the team.

Sunday might be the only outlet we have to see the team but you guys are surely aware that they practice, prepare and mentor for another 5 days a week. Just because as a fan you dont see a contribution doesnt mean it is not there and a player should just be cut.

I don't think fans are challenging the notion he is not providing value at some level to the team. Veteran. Lots of experience.

There is no denying the expectation he would be playing more than he is.

 

[aluminum seats]

Reiss on Harris:

It’s hard to imagine this is the way Belichick saw it unfolding when the team guaranteed Harris $1.25 million this offseason.

Yep, Reiss is on target as usual.