Schefter reporting Kelly, Anderson and Smith cut

mayoclinic said:

I hope not. Given that we're going to have 2 LBs on the field for 2/3 of the snaps, I don't see a need to carry that many. Having that many LBs leaves us way too thin on the DL, which we found out last year. I'm more than happy to load up on them on the PS, though.

Click to expand...

When did we last carry more that 9 defensive linemen. How is fewer than 9 DL's somehow thin? Can you even name 5 DE's that you want on the team?

DT (5)
We all seem to be fine raising our number of DT's from last year's 4 to 5 because we had 3 injuries at the same position (Wilfork, Kelly and Francis). I'm fine with five DT's

DE (3)
I see no one but Ninkovich, Jones and Buchanan. Even that should be better than last year when we also had Bequette. Almost all of us had Moore headed to the Practice Squad a couple of weeks ago. He's done well and is a good Practice Squad candidate. Hopefully Fleming or Hightower can take a few DE reps this year. Some have suggested Easley. Vellano has played a bit of 3-4 DE in this preseason.

9th DL
We are likely fine with 8 DL's, unless we can find a veteran DE backup. However, we have the opportunity to add a bit of depth. The choices are Moore, Vellano or Bequette. My choice is Vellano, but I can understand another choice. The point is that we don't need 10 defensive linemen.
=========================================
DEFENSIVE BACKS
We will carry 9 or 10. I vote for 10, although many want 9.
========================================
HOW MANY LINEBACKERS? (the answer is 6 or 7)
FIVE POSITIONAL LINEBACKERS
In 2013, we have averaged 2.2 LB's on the field at once. However, we also had 2 LB's injured. We were very happy that we had 2 qualified backups in Collins and Fletcher. It is the hope of many of us that Hightower or Fleming can take some reps at DE, or at least when someone is injured. Having 2 backups is the low limit, because we need Ninkovich and Jones as starting DE's.
ONE OR TWO ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TEAMERS
We have almost always carried wide body special teamers (LB's or SS's). They are critical players in the special teams units. Last year, we had Chris White and Beauharnais for a total of 7 LB's.
=======
BOTTOM LINE
We should carry 6 LB's.

DL 9
LB 6
CB 5
S 4
25th - either a 10th DL or a 5th safety

I'll add my voice to the chorus. I was shocked by the Kelly release. Mildly surprised by the Anderson release, though a lot less surprised after watching the young LB's step up their play. And not surprised at all by the Smith release.

What I'm hoping is that most, if not all of the following are the reasons for Kelly being cut.

1. Siliga and/or Jones are on track to be back on the field within 2 weeks.
2. Villano has shown a "2nd year leap"
3. Easley has shown flashes of the top 10 talent that caused them to take the risk on him, AND he's on track to play in game one.
4. They think Worthy can be coached up into the 2nd round talent he was reported to have.....playing in the Pats defensive system.
5. Vince is ALL the way back.

I liked Kelly, especially his size, length and penetrating quickness. He was by far our best defensive lineman during the short time he played for us last season. I have to be honest, I didn't watch him closely, but I thought he was doing well so far this camp.

I reject the idea that his release makes it more likely we will be in a 3-4 this season. Far from it. Kelly was the ONLY guy who had the size and length that BB likes in his 3-4 DE's Easley is your consummate one gap DLman, Worthy has already failed at being a 3-4 DE in the Packer system. and Vellano and Chris Jones are too short and small to do the job consistently. Plus you don't want to have your best edge rusher dropping back in coverage, even if its only about 30% of the time.

I hope to have my thread on the whole 3-4/4-3 topic ready tomorrow. It will be good to discuss something other than roster speculation, while we wait for opening day.

patfanken said:

I reject the idea that his release makes it more likely we will be in a 3-4 this season. Far from it. Kelly was the ONLY guy who had the size and length that BB likes in his 3-4 DE's Easly is your consummate one gap DLman, Worthy has already failed at b eing a 3-4 DE in the Packer system. and Villano and CJones are too short and small to do the job consistently. Plus you don't want to have your best edge rusher dropping back in coverage, even if its only about 30% of the time.

Click to expand...

If that's true, then why do any teams with good edge rushers ever run a 3-4 defense?

As a part of that, we might also consider whether we should really keep 6 DT's; we kept 4 last year. My initial idea is that we should, along with the obvious 3 DE's, at least until everyone is healthy.

In any case, we now pretty well know our defensive linemen, with the obvious lack of depth at DE.

Losing Kelly is shocking. However, now, several hours later, I am more concerned about our lack of depth at DE.

patfanken said:

I'll add my voice to the chorus. I was shocked by the Kelly release. Mildly surprised by the Anderson release, though a lot less surprised after watching the young LB's step up their play. And not surprised at all by the Smith release.

What I'm hoping is that most, if not all of the following are the reasons for Kelly being cut.

1. Siliga and/or Jones are on track to be back on the field within 2 weeks.
2. Villano has shown a "2nd year leap"
3. Easley has shown flashes of the top 10 talent that caused them to take the risk on him, AND he's on track to play in game one.
4. They think Worthy can be coached up into the 2nd round talent he was reported to have.....playing in the Pats defensive system.
5. Vince is ALL the way back.

I liked Kelly, especially his size, length and penetrating quickness. He was by far our best defensive lineman during the short time he played for us last season. I have to be honest, I didn't watch him closely, but I thought he was doing well so far this camp.

I reject the idea that his release makes it more likely we will be in a 3-4 this season. Far from it. Kelly was the ONLY guy who had the size and length that BB likes in his 3-4 DE's Easly is your consummate one gap DLman, Worthy has already failed at b eing a 3-4 DE in the Packer system. and Villano and CJones are too short and small to do the job consistently. Plus you don't want to have your best edge rusher dropping back in coverage, even if its only about 30% of the time.

I hope to have my thread on the whole 3-4/4-3 topic ready tomorrow. It will be good to discuss something other than roster speculation, while we wait for opening day.

Click to expand...

Marqui said:

If that's true, then why do any teams ever run a 3-4 defense?

Click to expand...

Good question. Back in the day when BB was among the first to use this alignment, they did it for 3 basic reasons.

1. Many think it is more effective in stopping the run, which was much more prevalent several years ago.

2. It is much easier to disguise your pass rush out of the 3-4.

3. And this is one big reason the gets over shadowed. Running the 3-4 required DLmen and LB's that had different skill sets than those teams running the 3-4. So when there were only 3 teams running it, those teams had an advantage in the draft, since 4-3 teams were more likely to pass on those players. Now that the 3-4 has become the predominant alignment in the league, obviously that advantage hast disappeared.

But more on this tomorrow.



.

ForThoseAboutToRock said:

The big downside, of course, was that the run defense was simply porous.

Click to expand...

Realistically, run defense is not the primary consideration in 2014 era NFL football. I suspect that the Pats would be thrilled to see their opponents try to match Brady point for point by running the ball up the middle.

Sure looks to me that Belichick is matching what looks to be an aggressive secondary with a young, quick front line that can play infinite games going after the QB from all directions. Nikovich, Jones, Easley, and Worthy are all explosive pass rushers.

I don't think we are looking at the old Pats' two-gap run stuffing zone coverage bend but don't break defense. Belichick is nobody's fool. He, of all people, knows it's a passing league.

Time the ef out on releasing Tommy Kelly. I am hoping this is temporary and that he will come back after week 1 or maybe he is now part of the infamous shadow roster.

Never shocked by a BB draft choice or a BB TC cut... it is what it is, finding the right combination of guys who will start the war of attrition in two weeks...

Probably most surprised at Brian Anderson as on paper, they seem to be thin at that position, however the young'uns will fill the void...

Wasn't it last year that the Pats were one of the younger teams in the league??....

Bobs My Uncle said:

Maybe shadow roster options .........................

Click to expand...

I think they're out early so that they get a chance to catch on elsewhere prior to the general flood of available bodies hitting the waiver wire. The goal of making a Tuesday cut on Sunday is so that "your" guy gets an edge in finding work... and I think these three will. ESPECIALLY Kelly.

The way I heard it, Anderson and Smith were constantly going at it in the locker room...

mgteich said:

When did we last carry more that 9 defensive linemen. How is fewer than 9 DL's somehow thin? Can you even name 5 DE's that you want on the team?

DT (5)
We all seem to be fine raising our number of DT's from last year's 4 to 5 because we had 3 injuries at the same position (Wilfork, Kelly and Francis). I'm fine with five DT's

DE (3)
I see no one but Ninkovich, Jones and Buchanan. Even that should be better than last year when we also had Bequette. Almost all of us had Moore headed to the Practice Squad a couple of weeks ago. He's done well and is a good Practice Squad candidate. Hopefully Fleming or Hightower can take a few DE reps this year. Some have suggested Easley. Vellano has played a bit of 3-4 DE in this preseason.

9th DL
We are likely fine with 8 DL's, unless we can find a veteran DE backup. However, we have the opportunity to add a bit of depth. The choices are Moore, Vellano or Bequette. My choice is Vellano, but I can understand another choice. The point is that we don't need 10 defensive linemen.
=========================================
DEFENSIVE BACKS
We will carry 9 or 10. I vote for 10, although many want 9.
========================================
HOW MANY LINEBACKERS? (the answer is 6 or 7)
FIVE POSITIONAL LINEBACKERS
In 2013, we have averaged 2.2 LB's on the field at once. However, we also had 2 LB's injured. We were very happy that we had 2 qualified backups in Collins and Fletcher. It is the hope of many of us that Hightower or Fleming can take some reps at DE, or at least when someone is injured. Having 2 backups is the low limit, because we need Ninkovich and Jones as starting DE's.
ONE OR TWO ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TEAMERS
We have almost always carried wide body special teamers (LB's or SS's). They are critical players in the special teams units. Last year, we had Chris White and Beauharnais for a total of 7 LB's.
=======
BOTTOM LINE
We should carry 6 LB's.

DL 9
LB 6
CB 5
S 4
25th - either a 10th DL or a 5th safety

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

As a part of that, we might also consider whether we should really keep 6 DT's; we kept 4 last year. My initial idea is that we should, along with the obvious 3 DE's, at least until everyone is healthy.

In any case, we now pretty well know our defensive linemen, with the obvious lack of depth at DE.

Losing Kelly is shocking. However, now, several hours later, I am more concerned about our lack of depth at DE.

Click to expand...

(1) You ask me "when did we carry more than 9 DLs", but you start with 9 DLs but admit a 10th. To answer your question, in 2012 the Pats had 11 DLs on August 31 on their initial 53 man roster; in 2011 they had 10:

Resetting the 53-man roster - espnBoston - 8/31/2012
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/6928953/assessing-patriots-53-man-rosterAssessing the Patriots' 53-man roster - espnBoston - 9/04/2011

(2) When has the final roster ever been set after initial cutdowns?

As of today I would probably keep Chandler Jones, Rob Ninkovich, Michael Buchanan and Zach Moore as "DEs" along with 6 DTs, as you discuss (Wilfork, Easley, Siliga, Jones, Worthy and Vellano), expecting that there will be a lot of moving guys around at different spots on the DL. But I also think there is a darn good chance of picking up another player in the next 2 weeks. There is clearly a need for another veteran presence, and for a DE.

Right now I think that 9 DLs, 5 LBs and 10 DBs (including STers) are very likely as a starting point. Whether there's room for another DL, LB or DB (not including Browner's 4 game suspension) will depend on BB's analysis of the offensive positions and who has the most to add to the final roster.

I liked the Anderson FA signing feeling that it was a potential cover LB acquisition. However he did not pop out in that regard in camp or in the 3 games. What I thought sealed his fate was his limp attempt to simply push the Eagles player out of bounds where he went on to gain over another 10 yards. Unforgivable mistake and/or lack of serious effort for a vet.

These cuts certainly send the signal that lack of concerted effort from anyone will not be tolerated
Do your job.

jefmblrd said:

Just tweeted by Ian Rapoport: interesting point about Gerard Warren.

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet
"With #Patriots cutting Tommy Kelly & Will Smith, don't be shocked if 1/both is back after W1. Salaries won't be gtd. Gerard Warren treatment"

Click to expand...

This.

Once again, Bill Belichick puts us on notice that the hours we spend projecting rosters, like the hours mocking drafts, are useless.

We follow minicamp. We show up at training camp. We read the reporters blogs. We track the number of reps in games. We note the depth charts; who's playing with the ones and the twos. We evaluate the needs of the team.

Tommy Kelly played well last year. He recovered from injury. He is professional on and off the field. He played next to Vince Wilfork in training camp. He started the pre-season games, and came off when the starters came off. The guys behind him are injured (Easley, Jones, Siliga) or young UDFA's (Vellano) or both. There was every indication that he would be the starting DT.

Confusing for most of us.
Must be crushing for mgteich.

Interesting note: at 6-2, right now Worthy is the Patriots' tallest DT.

Another interesting note:
So far this offseason, prior to the major wave of waivers, there have been the following releases:

QB: 0
RB: 1
WR: 5
OT: 0
OG: 1
OC: 0
DT: 2
DE: 1
LB: 2
CB: 0 (1 trade)
S: 2
LS: 2

and:
TE: 7

The Brandon Five said:

This.

Click to expand...

As others have said, the "Gerard Warren treatment" is being one of the LAST cuts, not the first. This is a veteran courtesy cut, done extra early to give the player the best possible chance of playing...for somebody else.

patchick said:

As others have said, the "Gerard Warren treatment" is being one of the LAST cuts, not the first. This is a veteran courtesy cut, done extra early to give the player the best possible chance of playing...for somebody else.

Click to expand...

Urgent said:

Tommy Kelly played well last year. He recovered from injury. He is professional on and off the field. He played next to Vince Wilfork in training camp. He started the pre-season games, and came off when the starters came off. The guys behind him are injured (Easley, Jones, Siliga) or young UDFA's (Vellano) or both. There was every indication that he would be the starting DT..

Click to expand...

Incidentally, Tommy Kelly has both been injured and been a young UDFA before, so that's nothing to hold against the competition.

patchick said:

As others have said, the "Gerard Warren treatment" is being one of the LAST cuts, not the first. This is a veteran courtesy cut, done extra early to give the player the best possible chance of playing...for somebody else.

Click to expand...

Yep, apparently they don't have to pass a physical if they are released prior to final rosters being set, once the 53's are in they have to pass a physical with any team they go to. At least that was Chatham's take on it.