FredFromDartmouth
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,298
- Reaction score
- 1,597
Mayo is staying. So, McKenzie, Spikes or Guyton... who's getting the axe?
I don't know how but you gotta keep all these guys....
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Mayo is staying. So, McKenzie, Spikes or Guyton... who's getting the axe?
I could see that happening as well. When healthy, I think Morris hits the hole harder than any of our other backs. Taylor might be close to the end, but if not, he could help the team a lot too.This is why I like the roster threads so much, because there are just so many different options and opinions, none of which are wrong or right.
Some interesting notes:
--you have the 5th RB in BJGE (debatable again this yr) it could even be that BJGE makes it and they still keep 4, thus dropping either Morris or Taylor
I do have 8 DL, but I could see Deaderick starting the season on the practice squad. The only problem with that is he might be claimed on a waiver, and I don't think the team wants to cut Pryor or Brace, who are young and still have undeveloped potential.--you have 8 DL wheras most have 6, I actually have 7 (at least 1 will go)
Holt or Patten might have a case to make the roster if Welker starts the season on the PUP, but after that I have a hard time believing the Pats will keep a 6th pure receiver on the roster. Just based on minicamp reports (which don't mean much), it sounds unlikely that Price or Tate would be cut. The team seems to be going with a youth movement again this year.--you don't have either Holt or Patten at WR, choosing Aiken instead (although this will help the ST case, it's also debatable of course)
I guess I wasn't thinking clearly when I wrote my post, as I completely forgot about the re-signing of Burgess. I could definitely see them going with 5 OLBs, possibly sending Deaderick to the practice squad or outright cutting Mike Wright. This is another area where the Pats need depth; in a few games last year the linebackers (and defensive line) appeared to wear down late in games.--you have neither Burgess, Woods, nor Crable at OLB (at the very least Burgess sticks, if not one of Woods/Crable) there also could be 5 OLB
I could see 6 DBs, but I'm not sure who would I'd cut to make room for Wheatley. If Arrington can cover in addition to his special teams play (he certainly has athletic ability), then Wheatley might have a hard time making the team.--you chose Arrington for ST presence at CB, instead of Wheatley (I actually agree if there's only 5, there could be 6)
True, but Arrington and Murrell are at this time pure ST players. In this roster I'm hoping for more defensive production from Murrell.--you don't have any 'just ST alone' guys, where I had 2
We NEED 4 safeites.
Yes one can be a st demon who rarely plays on D, but our special teams essentially require DBs to play some of the positions, and safeties more than corners. We have to have at least 9 DBs, and 6 corners with 3 safeties won't happen.
I dont know why everyone considers Pryor a lock.
I think he was a surprise to make the team last year, and will be equally a surprise to stick this year when there is more competition for jobs.
I don't think that we NEED four safeties. With two injuries, one of our corners can play safety. We NEED five corners and three safeties. And even at that, only 7 are needed in any given game.
THAT BEING SAID, we have almost always carried a fourth safety, understanding that he would be primarily a special teamer. All of our safeties are top special teamers.
I listed Arrington and CHung on the roster as top special teamers. I expect us to carry ten defensive backs, six corners and four safeties. In the end, I would rather lose McGowan that one of the six corners.
Respectfully disagree here, although you certainly have a point about wanting to keep 6 DB's. I hope that we actually do keep 6 DB's, but I do not want the cut coming at the hands of McGowan. As a great ST player, and the overall #3rd leading tackler on the team, I believe he brings the kind of passion to the field that we need on this team--also I believe he is alot of what BB looks for.
I simply do not want to mess with a position of stability, and I, personally like our 4 safeties as of today.
I like the 6 DB idea, even if it means having 24 on offense, 25 on defense,a LS, K, P and only ONE pure ST player who wouldn't otherwise make the roster such as Slater, etc. This team should be loaded w/ ST talent, and I believe that was one of the goals in drafting the last 2 yrs. We should have plenty of ST players who will already have achieved roster spots. We really could get by w/ only 1 pure ST guy taking up a spot, ala Slater.
Just my opinion though, there's no right or wrong of course.
Respectfully disagree here, although you certainly have a point about wanting to keep 6 DB's. I hope that we actually do keep 6 DB's, but I do not want the cut coming at the hands of McGowan. As a great ST player, and the overall #3rd leading tackler on the team, I believe he brings the kind of passion to the field that we need on this team--also I believe he is alot of what BB looks for.
I simply do not want to mess with a position of stability, and I, personally like our 4 safeties as of today.
I like the 6 DB idea, even if it means having 24 on offense, 25 on defense,a LS, K, P and only ONE pure ST player who wouldn't otherwise make the roster such as Slater, etc. This team should be loaded w/ ST talent, and I believe that was one of the goals in drafting the last 2 yrs. We should have plenty of ST players who will already have achieved roster spots. We really could get by w/ only 1 pure ST guy taking up a spot, ala Slater.
Just my opinion though, there's no right or wrong of course.