Jump to content

You're only as strong as your weakest link


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

Every team gets hit with injuries and that's a fact

 

We have trotted out John DiGorgio at MLB Justin Rodgers at outside corner, Jeff tuel and Thad Lewis at QB, Kelvin Benjamin WAS a liability last year

 

Your weakest players CAN HURT YOU

 

That’s a different argument.  Having good depth players is better than having poor ones.  But that was not what the OP said.  He said that a team is only as good as it’s weakest link.  That’s very different.  

 

Kelvin Benjamin was our starter (sadly).   Replace him with a difference maker like Deandre Hopkins or OBJ and you see what I’m taking about.  Lots less to worry about who our 4th or 5th WR is in that case.  The depth of the roster is for special teams, developmental and role players.  You want them to be serviceable when pressed into action, but except for Nick Foles which of them wins you games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

That’s a different argument.  Having good depth players is better than having poor ones.  But that was not what the OP said.  He said that a team is only as good as it’s weakest link.  That’s very different.  

 

Kelvin Benjamin was our starter (sadly).   Replace him with a difference maker like Deandre Hopkins or OBJ and you see what I’m taking about.  Lots less to worry about who our 4th or 5th WR is in that case.  The depth of the roster is for special teams, developmental and role players.  You want them to be serviceable when pressed into action, but except for Nick Foles which of them wins you games?

Well I'm OP and weakest link is subjective

 

You bring up replacing Benjamin with Hopkins but again what if they get hurt? INJURIES ALWAYS HAPPEN. 

 

We still need depth

 

If EJ Gaines is thrust into starting we are good. 

 

When Justin Rodgers started he had one of the worst games in NFL history

 

That's weakest link . Rodgers wasn't NFL caliber

 

We will not be stuck with non NFL talent

 

There is a reason Beane is always upgrading the bottom half of the roster

 

The weakest link doesn't have to be the last one to make the roster. He is just physically the one playing the worst... And those guys do play in the NFL

 

I bring up the Rodgers because he is the epitome of the weakest guy so gle handedly losing a game

 

 

 

Edited by Buffalo716
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Well I'm OP and weakest link is subjective

 

You bring up replacing Benjamin with Hopkins but again what if they get hurt? INJURIES ALWAYS HAPPEN. 

 

We still need depth

 

If EJ Gaines is thrust into starting we are good. 

 

When Justin Rodgers started he had one of the worst games in NFL history

 

That's weakest link . Rodgers wasn't NFL caliber

 

We will not be stuck with non NFL talent

 

There is a reason Beane is always upgrading the bottom half of the roster

 

 

 

 

If your goal is to win a championship then you need elite players.  If a bunch of them get injured then you are out.  If you don’t have them in the first place then you are out.  Serviceable replacements are needed, but those are not players that are going to get you to a championship.  Your elite players are the ones that’ll do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:

 

If your goal is to win a championship then you need elite players.  If a bunch of them get injured then you are out.  If you don’t have them in the first place then you are out.  Serviceable replacements are needed, but those are not players that are going to get you to a championship.  Your elite players are the ones that’ll do that. 

I don't think I ever said you don't need elite players

 

But having a bottom heavy roster with Dan Marino won't net you a SB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

I don't think I ever said you don't need elite players

 

But having a bottom heavy roster with Dan Marino won't net you a SB

 

It seemed like your focus was on roster depth. Quality depth is good, but the focus of building a championship team should be difference makers.  That’s all I’m saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Not really true. But the reality in many years past we used to have starters that would not even play in the CFL. 

 

Now well we don’t 

Much more talented offensively..my only regret was not getting Cook from the Raiders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

Honestly, in today’s NFL with the hard salary cap it doesn’t really work that way.  It’s about fielding as many difference makers as possible (including a QB) to go along with solid starters and good role players.  The bottom of the roster means little. 

This is what Whaley tried to do with his "Top Heavy" approach.   But that talent did not turn into blue chip players and cost the bills requiring a salary cap purge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

This is what Whaley tried to do with his "Top Heavy" approach.   But that talent did not turn into blue chip players and cost the bills requiring a salary cap purge.

 

Gotta get that QB.  Whaley never did.  I wonder what Schwartz’s defense could’ve done here with a stud QB and quality offense opposite it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CLTbills said:

I don't get all the hate for this post. There are multiple position groups that are going to see guys that might be the #2 on another team get cut. WR, CB, and RB all come to mind. It's a good problem to have, trying to decide which ones to keep when they're all capable of producing. 

 

There are guys that started on this (#2 overall) defense last year that may get cut because we've brought more talent in.

 

Definitely the first time in a long time I can remember having this kind of depth of quality talent. Not like having 3-4 great players and a bunch of backups in starting roles. Just think back to last year. We were trotting out Vlad Ducasse as a STARTER, and he started yesterday with the third string OL. 

 

The point that I think the OP is trying to make is this. If our worst player is a guy we don't want to get rid of because he's actually a dang good player that can start on another team, that's a pretty good problem to have. Lay off, all you Negative Nancy's 

Agreed fully!  Great depth of talent across the board (minus maybe special teams, but I haven't checked that heavily, and depth is normally where ST's get their players, so probably good there too!  Was thinking of the PK/KR/P roles though).  The starting talent AND depth appears to be in place;  it's going to come down to how well JA does.  And I bought only one jersey this year! :)  I'm thinking we have a team worthy of winning 10+ minimum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

As your weakest link...

 

I have learned that this is very true in the game of football.

 

IT IS A TEAM GAME. 1-53... More often than not #53 gets thrust into action and he needs to be able to play and not be a liability

 

For years and years and years our weakest link has always been bad, usually really bad

 

Going through our roster and how it might be compiled I am getting even more excited for the season. Our weakest link might actually be a pretty dang good player

 

BILLIEVE

Did you get this line from Mr. Hart from "9 to 5"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mark80 said:

I could have been the 53rd man on the Pats roster for the last 20 years and they would still have 6 titles.

/end thread

 

1.) good depth is nice to have

2) the 53rd man on your roster is the most important factor on a team

 

Many posters seem to think 1 and 2 mean the same thing. They do not . There are many factors much more important than the quality of the 53rd man on the roster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2019 at 8:32 AM, Forward Progress said:

I agree with the OP if you define the weakest link as the weakest player on the field. 

 

The weakest player on defence gets targeted more than any other player and likely has a greater effect on the game than the strongest defender who is avoided. 

The weakest member of the O-Line will be targeted in the pass rush. 

Weak receivers can be shut down in single coverage by average defenders leaving double coverage for the top receiving threats. 

 

When comparing the top-heavy Whaley rosters with a deep and balanced roster (like I think we are building here), I believe the deep and balanced rosters are more successful. 

Elite players are great. On the other hand for every elite player on a football team having good depth and a balanced roster becmes harder to accomplish IMO.

 

How many elite players do the Patriots have? Not many IMO, and when you go to find a weak link?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Figster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...