New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com  Patriots Fan Messageboard

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/)
-   PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/patsfans-com-patriots-fan-forum.html)
-   -   BB on the OT situation (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/303344-bb-ot-situation.html)

mayoclinic 12-15-2009 07:16 AM

BB on the OT situation
 
This from the Globe yesterday:

Belichick hints (again) at tackle situation's future - Extra Points - Boston.com

Belichick called out Vollmer for his rare ability to apparently play both LT and RT equally comfotable. I've been one of those suggesting we move Matt Light to RT and keep Vollmer at LT, where he's clearly our future. Sound's like BB doesn't like that idea:

"'In my brilliance,' Belichick said with a smile, 'I put [Light] at right tackle as a rookie. It didn’t really work out at all. He has the physical skills to play over there. But, then, he just … Matt’s just a left tackle. When you look at his skills, I don’t think you look at him and say, ‘Well, I don’t think he has the skills to play right tackle.’ But he’s just much more comfortable on the left side and he’s a much better left tackle than he was a right tackle, when we tried to play him there his rookie year. Once we got him back to left tackle, he was a much better football player. That was his rookie year, so maybe if it was his third year, he would’ve adjusted to it better. I don’t know, we just left him at left because he’s done a good job for us over there.'"

Sounds like we'll be seeing Light at LT and Vollmer at RT for much of the remainder of the season. I have nothing against Light, but I feel that Vollmer is our future at LT, so I would like to get him anchored there as soon as possible.

BelichickFan 12-15-2009 07:43 AM

Re: BB on the OT Situation
 
Playing future LT at RT as rookies isn't that uncommon, this is a good situation and I never thought they'd move Light to RT at this point in the season at this point in his career.

The interesting thing is what they do this offseason :

Keep Light, Vollmer and Kaczer and have Kaczer as a good swing backup.
Keep Light, Vollmer and Kaczer and move Kaczer to Guard as many think he can play.
Cut/trade Light, save $4M or so and have Vollmer and Kaczer at LT/RT.
Cut/trade Kaczer and have Light and Vollmer at LT/RT.

Kaczur's new contract is a little tricky with an option bonus. He looks cuttable WRT the cap but I doubt that's the plan. A lot of draft people thought he'd be a Guard when drafted, putting him at Neal's spot (unless Neal is re-signed) could work well. They may be ready to move on from Light and save the money, though.

ctpatsfan77 12-15-2009 07:52 AM

Re: BB on the OT Situation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan (Post 1642417)
Playing future LT at RT as rookies isn't that uncommon, this is a good situation and I never thought they'd move Light to RT at this point in the season at this point in his career.

The interesting thing is what they do this offseason :

Keep Light, Vollmer and Kaczer and have Kaczer as a good swing backup.
Keep Light, Vollmer and Kaczer and move Kaczer to Guard as many think he can play.
Cut/trade Light, save $4M or so and have Vollmer and Kaczer at LT/RT.
Cut/trade Kaczer and have Light and Vollmer at LT/RT.

Kaczur's new contract is a little tricky with an option bonus. He looks cuttable WRT the cap but I doubt that's the plan. A lot of draft people thought he'd be a Guard when drafted, putting him at Neal's spot (unless Neal is re-signed) could work well. They may be ready to move on from Light and save the money, though.

According to Miguel (emphasis mine):

"The deal includes an option bonus of $3.5 million. It is not known when the option bonus is due, but there is a clause in the contract that says if the option is not exercised, Kaczur's base salary would jump to $2.72 million in 2009. That seems to mean that Kaczur's option bonus is due at some point this year. Kaczur also has workout bonuses of $100,000 in 2010, 2011, and 2012."

102 Pat 12-15-2009 09:07 AM

Re: BB on the OT Situation
 
He might of been saying that to also try to keep the Bills guessing if he might line up at RT on sunday. You never know with BB!

Bill B. 12-15-2009 09:46 AM

Re: BB on the OT situation
 
I would keep Levoir over Kaczur as a swing backup. The times tht he has stepped in and played, I thought he did well. Better tan Kaczur anyway.

PATSYLICIOUS 12-15-2009 09:51 AM

Re: BB on the OT situation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic (Post 1642410)
This from the Globe yesterday:

Belichick hints (again) at tackle situation's future - Extra Points - Boston.com

Belichick called out Vollmer for his rare ability to apparently play both LT and RT equally comfotable. I've been one of those suggesting we move Matt Light to RT and keep Vollmer at LT, where he's clearly our future. Sound's like BB doesn't like that idea:

"'In my brilliance,' Belichick said with a smile, 'I put [Light] at right tackle as a rookie. It didn’t really work out at all. He has the physical skills to play over there. But, then, he just … Matt’s just a left tackle. When you look at his skills, I don’t think you look at him and say, ‘Well, I don’t think he has the skills to play right tackle.’ But he’s just much more comfortable on the left side and he’s a much better left tackle than he was a right tackle, when we tried to play him there his rookie year. Once we got him back to left tackle, he was a much better football player. That was his rookie year, so maybe if it was his third year, he would’ve adjusted to it better. I don’t know, we just left him at left because he’s done a good job for us over there.'"

Sounds like we'll be seeing Light at LT and Vollmer at RT for much of the remainder of the season. I have nothing against Light, but I feel that Vollmer is our future at LT, so I would like to get him anchored there as soon as possible.

That's the lineup I'd like to see as well. Vollmer shouldn't have a problem switching to LT when Matt's time is done here, Kaczur was an LT his rookie season and was able to switch. Will be interesting to see what the teams plans are for Matt next year.

robertweathers 12-15-2009 09:54 AM

Re: BB on the OT situation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill B. (Post 1642525)
I would keep Levoir over Kaczur as a swing backup. The times tht he has stepped in and played, I thought he did well. Better tan Kaczur anyway.

I've supported Kazur in the past but his ankle injuries are impeading his ablity to handle the speed rushers on the outside.

Vollmer has a ways to go but he seemed to do pretty well vs Peppers on Sun.

mayoclinic 12-15-2009 10:04 AM

Re: BB on the OT situation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill B. (Post 1642525)
I would keep Levoir over Kaczur as a swing backup. The times tht he has stepped in and played, I thought he did well. Better tan Kaczur anyway.

I would, too, especially if I could get something for Kaczur in a trade.

mgteich 12-15-2009 10:18 AM

Re: BB on the OT situation
 
I indicated yesterday that I thought that Vollmer's play at RT was solid and important. It seems that I agree with coach.

Now, Belichick has three options open with Light: trade, extend (best option for me), starting LT and starting LG (if Mankins goes). AS belichick stated, Light is NOT a RT. We are much better off trading Light than moving him to RT for a year.

Belichick also has options for Kaczur: starting RT, starting RG, backup OT, and backup OG.

This is a solid position to be in for 2010. With Light and Vollmer as starters (and LeVoir and Kaczur as backups), there is no pressure at all to draft a tackle.

The "problem" on the offensive line is that we have ZERO starting guards signed for 2009 and we have weak depth. Personally, I think that we are solid at OT for 2010 although I would be fine with drafting a developmental OT and keeping Kaczur as a backup or starting OG and OT.

mayoclinic 12-15-2009 10:34 AM

Re: BB on the OT situation
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich (Post 1642556)
I indicated yesterday that I thought that Vollmer's play at RT was solid and important. It seems that I agree with coach.

Now, Belichick has three options open with Light: trade, extend (best option for me), starting LT and starting LG (if Mankins goes). AS belichick stated, Light is NOT a RT. We are much better off trading Light than moving him to RT for a year.

Belichick also has options for Kaczur: starting RT, starting RG, backup OT, and backup OG.

This is a solid position to be in for 2010. With Light and Vollmer as starters (and LeVoir and Kaczur as backups), there is no pressure at all to draft a tackle.

The "problem" on the offensive line is that we have ZERO starting guards signed for 2009 and we have weak depth. Personally, I think that we are solid at OT for 2010 although I would be fine with drafting a developmental OT and keeping Kaczur as a backup or starting OG and OT.

It's possible we could trade Kaczur, if someone was willing to offer anything. I have no idea what his value would be.

As you say, we're in a solid position for 2010, and there is no pressure to draft a tackle. That doesn't mean that we couldn't draft a RT if the value was there, as the long term future should clearly have Vollmer at LT.

My 3 favorite OG prospects for the Pats are all guys with the athleticism to possibly play RT as well: Seniors Mike Iupati (who has exception feet for his size, and who some teams are rumored to be considering as a potential OT) and Vladimir Ducasse (who has played LT and has good feet), and junior Gabe Carimi of Wisconsin. Any of these guys could be drafted to succeed Neal at RG, but could potentially be moved to RT long term if the need/opportunity arose.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.

This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563