JoeSixPat

I've noted many of the roster predictions here, and additional comments where folks seem to rule out the notion of us going with only 2 QBs on the roster and I'm not sure why

Given all the bubble players out there who have done everything they can to earn a roster spot - be they veterans who can still contribute or young up and coming players who we'd likely love to find some way to retain, can someone explain to me why a third string QB should take that player's place?

I'm thinking of guys like CJ Jones, Matt Slater, Vince Redd, Gary Guyton - even Larry Izzo who could be on the bubble though I hope he's not. And that's not even getting into whether the team wants to keep 5 RBs instead of just 4.

Do folks really think keeping Cassell or Guttierez is that critical? I just don't see it - if either player were cut today I think there's every chance both would still be available to be signed if Brady did suffer an injury and we needed a new backup. Although I know O'Connell largely played against 2nd and 3rd stringers at best, I think he still showed that he's as good as either of them and has much more upside (aside from being a 3rd round pick who isn't going anywhere this year) and of course he actually has more real game experience than Cassell.

So why are so many fans discounting going with 2 QBs - especially given the fact that Belichick has already set the precedent and done so before? Is it simply the prospect of losing 2 QBs in one game?

I'm not getting it. (That being said, if BB keeps three, I absolutely trust his reasoning! )

Palm Beach Pats Fan

O'Connell being a rookie is the main reason. Now the defenses stop being vanilla.

Routinely being able to stash a 3rd QB on the game-day inactve list is another.

Brady's injury is a third reason.

The questionable O-line health is a fourth.

The investments both in O'Connell (3 round pick) and Cassell (3years of grooming) is a 5th reason.

DSal

I've thought that as well. It just seems that losing one of Slater, Redd, or Guyton would be more of a loss than losing Guttierez or Cassel. However I also understand the risk that the Pats would be taking by moving this way. With Brady's injury history over his entire career, I say take the risk - these young defensive guys certainly could be the future sitting right in the team's hands.

__________________
My gettup 'n go mustta gottup 'n went.
Steve Tyler

PATRIOT64

We all know O'Connell will remain on the roster but he is only a rookie and the best a rookie can do on this team is be third string.

If there were 3 veterans on the team prior to this year and not drafting a QB then having only 2 might have been possible but with a rookie in the mix you need a guy in between

Hopefully that #2 is not a pathetic waste as Cassel is at this point

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Jimke

After watching the preseason games, I'm starting to lean in that

direction. Neither Cassel or Gutierrez is worthy of being on the roster.

Pick up another quarterback after the cutdown for the practice squad.

ctpatsfan77

And BB never drafts linebackers in the first three rounds.

My point is this--if BB thinks it's in the team's best interests to have only 12 and O'Connell on the roster, that's what he'll do. I'd put the odds at <5%, but not zero.

I also think, BTW, that Slater is not on the bubble; he hasn't looked clueless at all. [Remember, last year was an aberration, and should not be looked at as a model for how cutdowns will go this year. ]

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

strongside

the problem is o'connell. He showed some promise but is not ready to be a #2. He probably at this point can only run 50% of the playbook. Even if they wack goots and cassell they would have to bring in a vet to be #2. Either way its 3 QB's this year

Jimke

Any quarterback who replaced Brady would only run 50% of the

playbook.

Rob0729

Unless they IR O'Connell, there is next to no shot at only two QBs on the roster. If O'Connell isn't IRed, there is a better chance the Pats go with 4 QBs than 2 QBs.

I can't see there being any way that Belichick would go with only Brady and O'Connell. Maybe next year.

O'Connell has a lot of raw talent, but he still needs to work on his mechanics and fundamentals a bit. He isn't ready to be a #2 QB.

PatsWickedPissah

Too risky. Chance of losing a game that could be managed to a W.
Stashing the cut QBs on the shadow roster they might still be available, but it forces BB to play O'C if Brady gets injured during a game. The 2008 O'C is too raw to 'manage' a game. One of the other 2 would give a better chance of success in managing a D inspired W.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH