Patriots are signing Patrick Chung

supafly said:

So, basically it's Devin McCourty coming off of shoulder surgery (not that it should be a concern, but it should be noted regardless) and a bunch of nothing....

Looks like a pretty obvious area of weakness to me. I actually see it as the weakest position of the entire team. It's McCourty, a rookie we're hopeful on that looked mediocre and who we have no idea about, and a handful of guys who will battle it out for special teams roles.

God help us if something happens to McCourty. That new CB situation will look a lot different if Harmon and T.Wilson (or Chung) are out there for any significant period. I think we all know how important it is to have some kind of viable safety play, as the two secondary positions obviously go hand in hand.

Belichick passed on a ton of reasonably priced safeties this FA period, so obviously he has a plan. What that plan is--no one knows yet. I'm sure it'll look much different in a couple of months.

Click to expand...

DaBruinz said:

Haven't bothered to read through the whole thread.

The re-signing of Patrick Chung is a low risk signing. He got 60K for a signing bonus. He's be in camp to try and make the team as a special teamer to possibly replace the loss of Dane Fletcher.

That's about it. I don't expect him to be a starter. He'll be an emergency back-up behind Harmon. That's about it..

Click to expand...

TheBostonStraggler said:

I am not saying Chung is now going to be a good safety, however, players/people can grow up and evolve. Consider that Chung experienced high success in his college career, then was drafted high to an A+ NFL team, and barely into his 23rd birthday was a starter for this high profile team earning repeated praise in NFL circles. Chung had not experienced real failure and had no reason for introspection or a change in approach. Then these last couple of years happened and he experienced completely new and stark failure. So if introspection and a differing approach to his play was needed to make him a better/effective player, these last two years should (not did) have provided the impetus for it (most especially that this new found failure was experienced well outside his comfort zone in an entirely new environment).

The signing of Chung probably has almost no cap ramifications or risk. So why not give Chung a chance (especially considering the love for him in 2010)? Let's see if he has grown up/evolved to a point he can ably accomplish the role that is asked of him (hopefully at least he is a ST superstar)? He wouldn't be the first player that improved his play based on the smarts that come with experience (and the ability it can provide to cover up deficiencies in one's play). And yet if his level of play remains at the 2012, 2013 level then cut him -- that's that. No reason at all to be worked up over this signing, no need to take shots at BB for it (we have Ocho Cinco for that).....

Click to expand...

Steamer86 said:

This guy is horrible in coverage.

Click to expand...

betterthanthealternative said:

IIRC, his coverage issues weren't all about his physical ability. Perhaps he's learned something, or matured a bit, in his time away from NEP coaching, and is returning with a bit of humility that could turn into smarter play. Why not hope for the best?

Click to expand...

RelocatedPatFan said:

Didn't he freelance a bit too much for BB's liking? if so, that could very well be true. however, he consistently took poor angles.

Click to expand...

varjao said:

It was a terrible call.

They should never ever called that play. The team was very nervous, not in the same page, but going to halftime with only 7x3 in the scoreboard you can manage that in the locker room. Pretty manageable scoreboard.

14 x 3 against that defense though, is a different story.

The worst call I ever seen. Tragic.

Click to expand...

1960Pats said:

The worst Pats call ever was the 4th and 2 at Indy in 2009. No other call comes close.

The worst call of them all though was the one I made to Susan C. in 1966 to cancel coming over her house to help babysit. What the heck was I thinking?

Click to expand...

patfanken said:

Ultimately the more I think and read about the Chung signing the more I like it.

1. It's risk free - It doesn't look like its for much money over the vet minimum if at all. There's been no talk about any guaranteed money.

2. It's never been about athletic ability, diligence, toughness, or love of the game for Chung. His problems all come down to his head. Bad angles, bad decisions, etc IIRC, Chung played very well in a bad, decimated secondary that made it to a superbowl, back in 2011. Good enough that many thought he'd be a "breakout player" in 2012.

Instead he regressed to the point where he lost his job. But I'm guessing BB feels that the guy who played so well at the end of 2011 is still in there, so why not take a no risk flyer on bringing him back.

3. He's been around so long, its easy to forget that he's only 26 years old. Just maybe.... time enough still for a very motivated Pat Chung to "get his head straight". If not, he'll either be a low cost special teams ace, or looking for work. So in the end, given the no risk, good reward nature of the signing, it probably generated more discussion that was warranted.

Click to expand...

Ivan said:

I didn't want them to re-sign him when he became a free agent because he wasn't worth it, however after falling out of Philly he is a cheap depth piece with upside, and he may start to realize he is running out of options and finally start to take the coaching the way he should have from the beginning. He is still a young player and he has some skills, but his role is going to be more of an in the box safety and he may be able to turn himself into a good role player for them. We'll see? either way it doesn't hurt them.

Click to expand...

KontradictioN said:

Has the issue with Chung ever been that he didn't take to coaching? Serious question. I don't recall ever reading that in a draft bio or report on him since he's been a pro.

Click to expand...

betterthanthealternative said:

If that were true, he wouldn't have played for years for our coach, nor would he have started several games in Philly. Yes, it is perhaps the weakness in his game, but he has to be at least mediocre to see the playing field.

Click to expand...

betterthanthealternative said:

IIRC, his coverage issues weren't all about his physical ability. Perhaps he's learned something, or matured a bit, in his time away from NEP coaching, and is returning with a bit of humility that could turn into smarter play. Why not hope for the best?

Click to expand...

Deus Irae said:

No, he's horrible in coverage.



Stop making excuses for the fact that he sucked. He sucked. He's here. We're stuck, at least for the moment, hoping that he'll magically improve.

Click to expand...

ausbacker said:

I'm leaning toward trading up for Pryor if he's in a slot available to the Patriots. I like Harmon but Pryor is a bruiser and the Patriots need one of those to compliment McCourty's range. That said, if Pryor isn't available I'd be happy for the Patriots to strengthen the DL rotation with Tuitt.

Click to expand...

TommyBrady12 said:

aren't both dix and pryor free safeties like mccourty? can they play strong safety?

Click to expand...