Reiss’s roster locks

203Pat said:

I think Amendola and Lafell cost too much to release.

Click to expand...

FWIW -
Amendola counts $4.575m against the 2014 cap and $5.575 million against the 2015 cap. If traded, the numbers go to $1.2 million in 2014 and $3.6 million in 2015. If released, the numbers go to $3.2 million in 2014 and $3.6 million in 2015. The $3.6 million amount may go down if Amendola has an offset clause in his contract so if he gets paid $2 million this year by another team Patriots would receive a 2 million credit in 2015

Lafell counts $2m against the 2014 cap and $3.2 million against the 2015 cap. If traded or cut, the numbers go to $1 million in 2014 and $2 million in 2015.

I wouldn't be surprised if Slater gets cut or restructured -- I wouldn't consider him a lock at his salary level.

voluntarysaftey said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Slater gets cut or restructured -- I wouldn't consider him a lock at his salary level.

Click to expand...

We could use a thread on this...

Kyle Arrington a "sure fire" lock? What if that Swanson kid continues to shrine in TC or Green improves?

I think this is a bit overblown. He called all of the guys in question 'near locks'. I think his main point is that there are, in fact, some circumstances in which one or more of these guys get cut. Not very likely, but possible.

patsinthesnow said:

Kyle Arrington a "sure fire" lock? What if that Swanson kid continues to shrine in TC or Green improves?

Click to expand...

That Arrington contract sucks, if i'm not mistaken the cap hit is a problem if he gets cut.

If they somehow manage to trade him then I say this would be the best DB offseason ever.

You can quibble about a couple of the picks but just like every year the majority of the roster is set before training camp. Generally 45 spots are near locks with some competition at the bottom of the roster.

varjao said:

That Arrington contract sucks, if i'm not mistaken the cap hit is a problem if he gets cut.

Click to expand...

After much debate and a tremendous amount of cap education, we came to the conclusion that Arrington would actually save money if cut this year--which is against what the general consensus believed. I believe this was greatly helped by the post June 1st aspect.

supafly said:

After much debate and a tremendous amount of cap education, we came to the conclusion that Arrington would actually save money if cut this year--which is against what the general consensus believed. I believe this was greatly helped by the post June 1st aspect.

Click to expand...

Yeah but doesn’t that just mean that it will hit our 2015 cap?

Brady6 said:

Yeah but doesn’t that just mean that it will hit our 2015 cap?

Click to expand...

Yes.

No matter what happens, the 2015 proration of his signing bonus is going to hit the 2015 cap. If Arrington is cut or traded in 2014, the 2016 proration of his signing bonus is also going to hit the 2015 cap.

patsinthesnow said:

Kyle Arrington a "sure fire" lock? What if that Swanson kid continues to shrine in TC or Green improves?

Click to expand...

???

Neither would replace Arrington on the roster. They might replace one of the four safeties that Reiss has listed, or one could be one of the final 4 (5 if you don't think that Moore is a lock).

I think that Reiss has done a reasonable job. The primary point is an interesting one. Barring injuries, he believes that we have only FOUR open positions. That is really, really, low. But his analysis isn't that bad.

Personally, I would not include Moore (or any 5th DE) as a lock, but that's quibbling. That gives me only FIVE openings.
=====
To his roster (after excluding Moore), I would add either Connolly or Wendell, two linebackers and a long snapper. That would being me to 52. The last player could come almost anywhere, although since we would already have 25 on offense (plus Slater), I would expect this to be a defensive players DE or a DB.

We could add a TE, but I suspect that would be at the expense of one of the WR's.

My hope is that Polo is ready to be our #2 and we are able to move Mallett and keep 9 OL's.

There are always preseason injuries and surprise cuts. Last season it's likely Reiss would have labeled Adrian Wilson and Jake Ballard locks at this point in the offseason.

Brady6 said:

There are always preseason injuries and surprise cuts. Last season it's likely Reiss would have labeled Adrian Wilson and Jake Ballard locks at this point in the offseason.

Click to expand...

And he would have deserved ridicule for considering Wilson a lock.

Sciz said:

And he would have deserved ridicule for considering Wilson a lock.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree. That was not my point however.

mgteich said:

I think that Reiss has done a reasonable job. The primary point is an interesting one. Barring injuries, he believes that we have only FOUR open positions. That is really, really, low. But his analysis isn't that bad.

Personally, I would not include Moore (or any 5th DE) as a lock, but that's quibbling. That gives me only FIVE openings.
=====
To his roster (after excluding Moore), I would add either Connolly or Wendell, two linebackers and a long snapper. That would being me to 52. The last player could come almost anywhere, although since we would already have 25 on offense (plus Slater), I would expect this to be a defensive players DE or a DB.

We could add a TE, but I suspect that would be at the expense of one of the WR's.

My hope is that Polo is ready to be our #2 and we are able to move Mallett and keep 9 OL's.

Click to expand...

You don't think another tight end is a given? What would carrying three tight ends have to do with the number of wide receivers? The team will always be unbalanced based on where they have developmental players they want to look at. In the past, that has included Bequette and Tavon Wilson. I think holding spots to see improvement from Thomkins and Boyce could depend more on those defensive players than on other needed offensive ones.

Maybe they also want to take a look at the rookie receiver Gallon? Just saying, we have needs (TE) and developmental spots and I don't think the latter have much to do with the total number of spots on O and D.

Sciz said:

And he would have deserved ridicule for considering Wilson a lock.

Click to expand...

For the record, I believe he never thought he would make the team, pre injury. Of course, my memory could be faulty.

Brady6 said:

There are always preseason injuries and surprise cuts. Last season it's likely Reiss would have labeled Adrian Wilson and Jake Ballard locks at this point in the offseason.

Click to expand...

This is a tough crowd. After bashing Reiss for his "near lock" selections we've moved on to criticizing him for stuff he might have done a year ago. Is that wicked pissah, or what?


Yes B6. Fun at your expense. I do get your point about injuries.

PatsWickedPissah said:

This is a tough crowd. After bashing Reiss for his "near lock" selections we've moved on to criticizing him for stuff he might have done a year ago. Is that wicked pissah, or what?


Yes B6. Fun at your expense. I do get your point about injuries.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm here for...

Let's be clear. Reiss listed 49 locks or near locks. I reduced it to 48 by excluding Moore.
============================================================================
ARE THERE LOCKS FOR THE LAST FIVE POSITIONS (SIX for four weeks)?
Personally, I believe that fourth linebacker is an absolute lock. I believe that a long snapper is an absolute lock.

The other 3-4 positions could arguably come from anywhere. Personally, I don't think that we will have only 23 defensive players on the 53. Perhaps you disagree.

The patriots will LOOK at everyone, including Gallon. I agree with Reiss that the competition is very tough for anyone not on his list, especially on offense. After all, he already has 25 (including Slater).

I do NOT think that a 3rd TE is a GIVEN. I expect that it is a given that we will carry a TE on the Practice Squad.

RayClay said:

You don't think another tight end is a given? What would carrying three tight ends have to do with the number of wide receivers? The team will always be unbalanced based on where they have developmental players they want to look at. In the past, that has included Bequette and Tavon Wilson. I think holding spots to see improvement from Thomkins and Boyce could depend more on those defensive players than on other needed offensive ones.

Maybe they also want to take a look at the rookie receiver Gallon? Just saying, we have needs (TE) and developmental spots and I don't think the latter have much to do with the total number of spots on O and D.

Click to expand...