Early, baseless Roster Projection...

[patsox23]

THE OFFENSE - 24

QB - Brady, Cassel, NFL vet (Fiedler/Maddox/Rattay?)

RB - Dillon, Maroney, Faulk, Pass/Mills (R)

WR - Branch, Caldwell, Jackson (R), Brown, Childress/(Patten?)

TE - Watson, Graham, Thomas (R)

OT - Light, Kaczur, Britt, O'Callaghan (R)

OG - Mankins, Neal, Tucker

C - Koppen, Hochstein

THE DEFENSE - 26

DE - Seymour, Warren, Green, Hill, Wright

NT - Wilfork, Smith (R), Sullivan

OLB - Vrabel, Colvin, Banta-Cain, Davis, Mincey (R)

ILB - Bruschi, Beisel, Claridge (swing), Izzo

CB - Hobbs, Samuel, Gay, C. Scott, Andrews (R)

S - Harrison (PUP?), Wilson, Sanders, Tebucky

SPECIAL TEAMS - 3

K - Gostkowski

P - Miller

LS - Paxton



NOTABLE CUTS - Dan Klecko, Brandon Gorin, Guss Scott, Hank Poteat, Eric Warfield, Barry Gardner

 

[patsox23]

Before anyone says anything, I know Andrews played safety in college, but I had heard they'll look at him as a CB in N.E. - 'thought mostly a KR/PR.

 

[Jimke]

I agree with all of your cuts. The only problem I have is that

you don't have enough defensive backs. I would add Artrell Hawkins

and subtract LeKevin Smith.

 

[patsox23]

One more amendment - I should have put Hawkins on there. I forgot. I'd probably switch him with Don Davis going to the scrap-heap.

 

[patsox23]

I agree with all of your cuts. The only problem I have is that

you don't have enough defensive backs. I would add Artrell Hawkins

and subtract LeKevin Smith.

Obviously it depends on how Smith looks in T.C., but my guess is there's a bigger need for a long-term back-up to Wilfork, and I'm not sure counting on Sullivan is a sound plan. So I'd put Hawkins in, and as mentioned above, knock out Don Davis.

 

[shakadave]

I think you've pretty much got the thing figured out! Maybe add Grammatica to the notable cuts list? Swing Claridge out to OLB?

 

[mgteich]

1) Eight defensive linemen? For everyone else, the issue is 6 or 7. Wright and Smith are competing for at most one spot. We need special teamers much more than project backup DL's.
2) Sanders, Jones, and Hawkins will all play corner (dime or nickel) long before Andrews. Sanders was our nickel last year.
3) Pass and/or Mitchell are likely to make it as special teamers.
4) Your hope is that our starting RT isn't good enough to be a backup. Personally, I can't see dante having Britt as the gameday backup at LT.
5) you don't like our safeties much. Mitchell and Hawkins are more valuable than other players you mention.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

PFWeekly seems to think that Mills is being used as a TE, just like his college position would suggest. He may be currently listed at fullback, but the reps he takes seem to suggest otherwise. I believe the Pats keep 4 TEs if Mills shows he can play, but I also think he is competing with the likes of Pass for one of the last 'roles' on the 53 man roster. I don't expect to see Mills running the ball from the backfield.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

I agree with others that the pats will likely keep one more db in place of either Wright or Smith. Can Sullivan back up at de or will he strictly be a nt in the 3-4? His flexibility could be key as a backup at more than one position.


Regardless, there will be some real talent cut from this team.

 

[patsox23]

1) Eight defensive linemen? For everyone else, the issue is 6 or 7. Wright and Smith are competing for at most one spot. We need special teamers much more than project backup DL's.
2) Sanders, Jones, and Hawkins will all play corner (dime or nickel) long before Andrews. Sanders was our nickel last year.
3) Pass and/or Mitchell are likely to make it as special teamers.
4) Your hope is that our starting RT isn't good enough to be a backup. Personally, I can't see dante having Britt as the gameday backup at LT.
5) you don't like our safeties much. Mitchell and Hawkins are more valuable than other players you mention.

LOL - always leave it to mgteich to bring a b!tchy tone to the proceedings. Oh, and FTR, I posted - in plenty of time for you to read it - that leaving off Hawkins was an oversight. As for your other comments...

Yeah, 8 DL is a bit heavy, I just am hoping Sullivan will make it as a swing DL/NT and LeKevin won't be a wasted draft pick.

Sanders was our nickel last year out of necessity, 'though I don't doubt he'll see the field ahead of Andrews.

Pass and/or Mitchell making the squad as S/Ter's is definitely a possibility. But I wonder if Mitchell will end up this year's version - the DB version - of 2005 LB/ST pick-up Wesley Mallard, who ended up getting cut.

As for "not liking our safeties very much," I guess I'm not as aware of Mitchell's talent besides on coverage teams. Re: Hawkins, I will again point out my post from earlier.

 

[jeffd]

OLB - Vrabel, Colvin, Banta-Cain, Davis, Mincey (R)

ILB - Bruschi, Beisel, Claridge (swing), Izzo

More of a hope than a prediction but I would love to see Mincey or TBC step up and start at OLB in the 3-4. I really liked Vrabel on the inside. Then move him back out in the 4-3.

 

[mgteich]

B!tchiness is the eyes of the beholder. Do you really need everyone to agree with all your analysis?

DEFENSIVE LINE
In general, I have no problem with 8 DL's; on this team, I favor seven at most. We've carried 8 DL's before, with #7 and #8 being emergency veterans who could step in should injuries take their course. Of course, they were inactive almost every week.

I also hope SUllivan will be able to be a swing DL/NT. Just BTW, Wilfork can play DE. As you know, flexibility is required by bb on the DL.

IMHO, we shouldn't keep Hill AND Wright AND Sullivan AND Smith. Smith was drafted late and should give Wright competition for a spot. If he's ready, he'll beat out Wright. I don't see why it would be a waste if he pushed Wright to step up. Sullivan was traded for into a line that was already among the best in the league. I suspect that if he makes the team, he will be able to beat out one of the backups: Wright or Smith. If both Sullivan and Hill look good, I would consider going with six, with Smith on the PS.

DEFENSIVE BACKS
Sanders beat out Poteat for reps at nickel back. If Harrison is healthy, I see no reason for him not to be competing with Gay for reps at nickel and dime. Hopefully Gay and Warfield/Scott will be much better than Sanders, but Sanders is worth a look, at least at dime (a spot for safeties in bb's schemes).

Andrews is an early fan favorite. That doesn't make him better than the #12 or #13 defensive back. I would rather have Bruschi stay in the game or Davis come in for a few plays if needed. The issue is whether Andrews is so good that he wins a returner job and roster spot. He would replace one of the special teamers.

I agree that Mitchell could be this year's Mallard, good enough to play, but with too many ahead of him on the roster to win a spot (great camp insurance). I would be fine if Tebucky, Pass and Guss made it impossible to cut them.

LOL - always leave it to mgteich to bring a b!tchy tone to the proceedings. Oh, and FTR, I posted - in plenty of time for you to read it - that leaving off Hawkins was an oversight. As for your other comments...

Yeah, 8 DL is a bit heavy, I just am hoping Sullivan will make it as a swing DL/NT and LeKevin won't be a wasted draft pick.

Sanders was our nickel last year out of necessity, 'though I don't doubt he'll see the field ahead of Andrews.

Pass and/or Mitchell making the squad as S/Ter's is definitely a possibility. But I wonder if Mitchell will end up this year's version - the DB version - of 2005 LB/ST pick-up Wesley Mallard, who ended up getting cut.

As for "not liking our safeties very much," I guess I'm not as aware of Mitchell's talent besides on coverage teams. Re: Hawkins, I will again point out my post from earlier.

 

[mgteich]

I think many would like to see that, including bb. I would add Claridge and Alexander to the list of those who COULD step up.

More of a hope than a prediction but I would love to see Mincey or TBC step up and start at OLB in the 3-4. I really liked Vrabel on the inside. Then move him back out in the 4-3.

 

[patsox23]

B!tchiness is the eyes of the beholder. Do you really need everyone to agree with all your analysis.

No, but there you go again. Boy, I was trying to keep things light, but do you really have to be such a Jauron with your critiques? There's a way to disagree - why on Earth do you think I posted the thing? - without being a jerk about it.

 

[patsox23]

Smith was drafted late and should give Wright competition for a spot. If he's ready, he'll beat out Wright. I don't see why it would be a waste if he pushed Wright to step up. Sullivan was traded for into a line that was already among the best in the league. I suspect that if he makes the team, he will be able to beat out one of the backups: Wright or Smith. If both Sullivan and Hill look good, I would consider going with six, with Smith on the PS.

I'd be fine with that scenario. As for Sanders, I'm hoping for something inclusive of, but more substantial than, being the dime back.

 

[flutie2phelan]

No, but there you go again. Boy, I was trying to keep things light, but do you really have to be such a Jauron with your critiques? There's a way to disagree - why on Earth do you think I posted the thing? - without being a jerk about it.

Mgteich does NOT put up *****y posts. That ad hominem attack was out of line.
The rejoinder above just digs the hole deeper.

I foresee only 6 DLs on the roster ... and LeKevin Smith will not be one of them.
Practice squad ... if he is lucky.

 

[patsox23]

Mgteich does NOT put up *****y posts. That ad hominem attack was out of line.

A) breathe.

b) I like mgteich, enjoy reading his posts, but he does tend toward the dismissive and b!tchy at times, and it's often unnecessary. I think positing that I somehow "dont want people to disagree," just b/c I take issue - in an incredibly light-hearted way - to an unnecessarily curt tone, is as b!tchy as the original. Like I'm a huge idiot for suggesting A, B or C. There is a way to disagree and connect on here without it being nasty.

Meanwhile apparently "There's a way to disagree - why on Earth do you think I posted the thing? - without being a jerk about it" is a personal attack.

c) breathe some more.

d) Yes, I know I'm now being b!tchy. Thanks for getting involved.

 

[flutie2phelan]

LOL - always leave it to mgteich to bring a b!tchy tone to the proceedings. Oh, and FTR, I posted - in plenty of time for you to read it - that leaving off Hawkins was an oversight. As for your other comments...

....

Above is your post i referred to ... not the one you cited.

You say some good things here.
Now quit making an ***** of yourself.

 

[patsox23]

Above is your post i referred to ... not the one you cited.

You say some good things here.
Now quit making an ***** of yourself.

Honestly, I don't want to keep getting into this, but if THAT is the post that led to your leapnig to the defense of mgteich, I don't know what to say to you. I couldn't have been more light-hearted in my initial response to mgteich.

Whatever, I think he and I can handle this ourselves. But hey. Thanks.