PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Tight end Shuffle: Hartsock, Maneri, Terrence Miller in; Jones, Watson, RB Houston out


Status
Not open for further replies.
People forget that on entering the raft the Pats had an OK Offensive line that was good enough to go to three consecutive AFCCGs. But it had sprung leaks in pass blocking, and the tackle situation was much better than the interior situation, plus the depth was almost exclusively PS types.

They wanted to improve C and RG, while adding depth. They traded down, to position to draft two OLs to develop. Stork at C, and Fleming at G/RT were the targets. Fleming was meant to either be an eventual RG, or add depth to tackle so as to release Cannon to be the RG.

Halapio was a pure afterthought, who fell to them and was deemed too good to ignore. He has demonstrated no unexpected greatness, and is purely a power G prospect for eventual future use.

One or two of Scar's PS projects, Josh Kline and maybe Devey seems to have matured enough to compete.

Stork and Flemming were targetted and drafted in the mid-rounds. I think the brain trust planned on grooming them for 2015, but perhaps as depth in 2014. Don't forget Connoly is in his early 30s and may not age well. However, Connoly is winning the C job back from Wendell, while tough guy Wendell competes with him, meanwhile Stork learns.

Kline is pushing to start at RG, and Fleming is providing the swing tackle depth to free Cannon, to move elsewhere, or be the "supersub" everywhere.

The Pats have an unexpected surplus of competent or good players to accompany the very good trio of Stars in Mankins, Vollmer and developing Solder.

I still see no reason to alter that approach

If you are that high on Fleming, I would keep him as the 9th OL rather than save the spot.
I want to develop the guy but think if Maneri is here as TE3 we can do it on the pracitce squad.
I can think of many roster permutations where we can afford to keep a 9th OL too.

I just don't see how Stork is going to make the team when he hasnt practiced in a month.
No reason he also cannot develop on the practice squad.
 
I just don't see how Stork is going to make the team when he hasnt practiced in a month.
No reason he also cannot develop on the practice squad.
No reason other than the near certainty he would not make it through waivers. Stork isn't going to the practice squad.
 
No reason other than the near certainty he would not make it through waivers. Stork isn't going to the practice squad.
I feel its a certainty he WOULD clear waivers.
Ive explained that reasoning in detail in another post, no reason to repeat it.
 
I feel its a certainty he WOULD clear waivers.
Ive explained that reasoning in detail in another post, no reason to repeat it.
I admire your confidence but cutting a 4th round pick hoping no-one claims him is a losing proposition.
 
I admire your confidence but cutting a 4th round pick hoping no-one claims him is a losing proposition.
History does not support your position. This is one of the biggest misconceptions going.
I don't have the time to do it, but if you look back you will find that very few, many times zero rookies that are cut in the final cut down are picked up before clearing waivers.
As I said I posted an explanation earlier.
Also I will say I would rather keep the player that can help us this year (Devey? Kline?) than weaken the team now so that we keep a guy who isn't ready to play in fear of another team taking him.
I don't hold out a ton of hope that Stork will ever be a major contributor, or at least not that the chances are greater than the guy I would keep in his place.
I'm not sure how keeping the best players is a losing proposition.
 
History does not support your position. This is one of the biggest misconceptions going.
I don't have the time to do it, but if you look back you will find that very few, many times zero rookies that are cut in the final cut down are picked up before clearing waivers.
And very few of them are 4th round picks. You may not like the pick but he was thr 5th pick of the 4th round. Playrts drafted that high are almost never cut so your stays are not valid.
 
And very few of them are 4th round picks. You may not like the pick but he was thr 5th pick of the 4th round. Playrts drafted that high are almost never cut so your stays are not valid.
Wouldnt that mean that your belief he would be claimed is also invalid?
 
History does not support your position. This is one of the biggest misconceptions going.
I don't have the time to do it, but if you look back you will find that very few, many times zero rookies that are cut in the final cut down are picked up before clearing waivers.

OK, I looked back. BelichickFan specified a 4th-round rookie, but there IS no history of Belichick rookies drafted at Stork's level or above being cut. So I decided to be generous and expand it to 5th & 6th. The last 3 examples I found of waived 5th & 6th rounders were Lee Smith, Ted Larsen, and Justin Rogers. ALL THREE WERE CLAIMED.

To find an example who wasn't claimed, you'd have to stretch your definition to Justise Hairston -- technically a 6th with a late comp pick, #208 overall in 2007 -- who passed waivers injured.

I'd say history sides with BelichickFan on this one.
 
THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW

If we believe that Stork is potentially our staring or backup 2015 or 2016 center, I suspect that we would keep him. A player does NOT have to be one of the 53 best players for 2014 in order to make the team. We occasionally do indeed carry a developmental player who we expect to be inactive all year.

Perhaps, Stork would indeed pass through waivers and even sign with us for our Practice Squad (if an OL needy team didn't convince him that there was a better place for him on their Practice Squad).

In this scenario, we succeed and hopefully have our future starting center on the Practice Squad. So, at any time, another team might look at their inactive players, especially their 8th and 9th OL's and decide that Stork is a better future prospect than their player. Is it so unreasonable to believe that some team will want Stork as a future prospect, perhaps after we are a few games into the season?

I understand that history is no guarantee, although you do cite precedents often. Belichick has NEVER cut one of our 4th rounders before the season started. Only Kareen Brown was cut during his rookie season. Given that we have serious future need for a center (and a backup center), it would seem prudent to keep Stork for this season.

I do think that teams SHOULD be more willing to keep developmental prospects at OL than at any other position than QB. After all, the 8th OL and 9th OL are almost always inactive. A 9th OL need not be counted on for any contributions for the current season.

History does not support your position. This is one of the biggest misconceptions going.
I don't have the time to do it, but if you look back you will find that very few, many times zero rookies that are cut in the final cut down are picked up before clearing waivers.
As I said I posted an explanation earlier.
Also I will say I would rather keep the player that can help us this year (Devey? Kline?) than weaken the team now so that we keep a guy who isn't ready to play in fear of another team taking him.
I don't hold out a ton of hope that Stork will ever be a major contributor, or at least not that the chances are greater than the guy I would keep in his place.
I'm not sure how keeping the best players is a losing proposition.
 
THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW

If we believe that Stork is potentially our staring or backup 2015 or 2016 center, I suspect that we would keep him. A player does NOT have to be one of the 53 best players for 2014 in order to make the team. We occasionally do indeed carry a developmental player who we expect to be inactive all year.

Perhaps, Stork would indeed pass through waivers and even sign with us for our Practice Squad (if an OL needy team didn't convince him that there was a better place for him on their Practice Squad).

In this scenario, we succeed and hopefully have our future starting center on the Practice Squad. So, at any time, another team might look at their inactive players, especially their 8th and 9th OL's and decide that Stork is a better future prospect than their player. Is it so unreasonable to believe that some team will want Stork as a future prospect, perhaps after we are a few games into the season?

I understand that history is no guarantee, although you do cite precedents often. Belichick has NEVER cut one of our 4th rounders before the season started. Only Kareen Brown was cut during his rookie season. Given that we have serious future need for a center (and a backup center), it would seem prudent to keep Stork for this season.

I do think that teams SHOULD be more willing to keep developmental prospects at OL than at any other position than QB. After all, the 8th OL and 9th OL are almost always inactive. A 9th OL need not be counted on for any contributions for the current season.

I understand that, but I don't view Stork differently than Devey, Kline, Barker etc.
I am concerned about OL depth, especially interior and equally concerned about cutting other players to overload the OL spots.

Solder
Mankins
Connolly
Kline
Vollmer
Cannon
Wendell
Devey
Fleming

Thats 9. Which one do you cut to keep Stork.
 
So, here we are!

Is it so unreasonable to keep 12 OL/TE's? If one of the OT's is the blocking 3rd TE, then perhaps we should keep all 10 offensive linemen.

Maybe this year the 10th offensive lineman is more valuable than the 5th safety (given that two of our corners have been getting reps at safety).

OFFENSE (26)
QB (3)
RB (4)
FB (1)
WR (5)
WR/ST (1)
TE (2)
OL (10)

DEFENSE (24)
DL (9)
LB (6)
CB (5)
S (4)

SPECIALISTS (3)

As an aside, I suspect that Belichick considers Stork to be a better prospect at C than Cave or Barker. If not, then Stork should probably not have been drafted, and should be put on IR.

I understand that, but I don't view Stork differently than Devey, Kline, Barker etc.
I am concerned about OL depth, especially interior and equally concerned about cutting other players to overload the OL spots.

Solder
Mankins
Connolly
Kline
Vollmer
Cannon
Wendell
Devey
Fleming

Thats 9. Which one do you cut to keep Stork.
 
Given that he's been hurt, if he was cut some team would claim Stork and then immediately put him on IR. The Patriots could open his roster spot by putting him on IR. Why would you try to shove him onto the PS?
 
Given that he's been hurt, if he was cut some team would claim Stork and then immediately put him on IR. The Patriots could open his roster spot by putting him on IR. Why would you try to shove him onto the PS?

Because he might not be hurt in 2 weeks.
 
OK, I looked back. BelichickFan specified a 4th-round rookie, but there IS no history of Belichick rookies drafted at Stork's level or above being cut. So I decided to be generous and expand it to 5th & 6th. The last 3 examples I found of waived 5th & 6th rounders were Lee Smith, Ted Larsen, and Justin Rogers. ALL THREE WERE CLAIMED.

To find an example who wasn't claimed, you'd have to stretch your definition to Justise Hairston -- technically a 6th with a late comp pick, #208 overall in 2007 -- who passed waivers injured.

I'd say history sides with BelichickFan on this one.
I was looking at it league wide (small number of claims made each season) but sure, this seems to conflict with my belief.
Also, you did miss a few in the same timeframe (Ruud, Oldenberg, Bussey)
 
So, here we are!

Is it so unreasonable to keep 12 OL/TE's? If one of the OT's is the blocking 3rd TE, then perhaps we should keep all 10 offensive linemen.

Maybe this year the 10th offensive lineman is more valuable than the 5th safety (given that two of our corners have been getting reps at safety).

OFFENSE (26)
QB (3)
RB (4)
FB (1)
WR (5)
WR/ST (1)
TE (2)
OL (10)

DEFENSE (24)
DL (9)
LB (6)
CB (5)
S (4)

SPECIALISTS (3)

As an aside, I suspect that Belichick considers Stork to be a better prospect at C than Cave or Barker. If not, then Stork should probably not have been drafted, and should be put on IR.
You are also cutting back WR and carrying only 24 on defense.
I'm sure that when Stork was drafted the rating on him was that he was a better prospect than a ps guy. But I don't think we want to build a roster based upon trying to affirm what was thought on draft day.
I am assuming that Stork does not return to practice. Of course he may. But if we are cutting down and he has missed 5 weeks of practice I just can't see keeping him.
Perhaps others value the potential of a 4th rounder more than I do.
Had we been having this discussion about all of the other rookies picked in the 3rd or 4th round who didn't earn their spot on the team but we wanted to keep them just to protect them, how many of Boyce, Bequette, Price, Tate, McKenzie, Orhnberger, Crable, OConnell, or Kareem Brown would we be sitting here lamenting how they got away.
Perhaps keeping them solely because of potential has been the wrong move. I cant think of the examples where we did it that worked out.
 
Given that he's been hurt, if he was cut some team would claim Stork and then immediately put him on IR. The Patriots could open his roster spot by putting him on IR. Why would you try to shove him onto the PS?
Practice squad allows him to develop. IR sends him home.
I think there is a better chance of him ultimately helping the Patriots if he is cut and signed to the ps if he clears waivers than sitting him IR for a year. That never seems to work.
 
Because he might not be hurt in 2 weeks.
I think we are speaking from the assumption that he won't be back in time to actually earn a spot.
If he starts practicing tomorrow, all of this means little.
 
Wouldnt that mean that your belief he would be claimed is also invalid?
Logic dictates my side. Unless it was the worst pick ever, no team would pass on the chamce to get a high 4th for free. What awful roster management - we like him enough to pick him that high but are content a few months later to ge 31 other teams to get him for free ? Not a chance.
 
They weren't good

I didn't say they were, but I would've given them another couple of weeks to see if they have any kind
of future instead than waiving them in favor of Maneri, Hartsock & Miller, all of whom have already shown that they have no future whatsoever.
 
Holy smokes. The good news is that you'll have another shot at plenty of these guys once they're cut from their current teams.

- Blake Annen is on every Eagles writer's "most likely to be gone in the first cutdown" list.
- Xavier Grimble is languishing at the bottom of the Giants' "wide-open TE competition." For perspective, the leaders of the competition are Larry Donnell and Daniel Fells.
- Jordan Navjar has been so underwhelming that the Cowboys brought in -- guess who? -- Asa Watson to take some of his practice snaps.
- Projections have the Falcons keeping only 2 TEs rather than waste a roster spot on the likes of Jake Pederson.
- The only mention I can find of Anthony Denham's camp performance is one article that refers to him as "one of the longest of the longshots" on the Texans' roster.

Then there are the guys like Burton and Hoskins who realistically play a different position. I think that leaves only Marcel Jensen and Jake Murphy as in-line TEs likely to even make a roster, let alone outplay Hooman.

Meanwhile on the veteran front, Owen Daniels has been demonstrating why Houston chose not to retain his services. It's being widely reported that he "has nothing left," and John Harbaugh is holding him out of practices to "rest his legs."

It's ugly out there.

Then it's ugly everywhere, Foxborough included.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots News And Notes 5-5, Early 53-Man Roster Projection
New Patriots WR Javon Baker: ‘You ain’t gonna outwork me’
Friday Patriots Notebook 5/3: News and Notes
Thursday Patriots Notebook 5/2: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 5/1: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Jerod Mayo’s Appearance on WEEI On Monday
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/30: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Drake Maye’s Interview on WEEI on Jones & Mego with Arcand
MORSE: Rookie Camp Invitees and Draft Notes
Patriots Get Extension Done with Barmore
Back
Top