Knee jerk reations...

[patfanken]

Just because you don't have to use your insurance poicy does not mean you should not have an insurance policy.

We aren't talking about the back up here. We are talking about using a roster spot on a player whose highest use is to take the place of the backup QB...THREE YEARS from now.

No one is saying you shouldn't have as good a back up as you can.

 

[patsfan209]

Just because you don't have to use your insurance poicy does not mean you should not have an insurance policy.

The Patriots have backups (the insurance policy) for Brady since 2001, right?

But thats not the point I'm making... I'm just making a general prediction like patfanken did here. We'll see in at least 5 years from now to know if patfanken and I are correct or not in that the Pats backups may not be needed in a meaningful game.

 

[patfanken]

I can, but I don't have to - BB did it for me.

Very glib, Box, to the point of being pithy. However its still weak to let another man present your arguement. Please explain to me how having Matt Guttierez on the 2007 roster is better than having Dante Wesley.

IMHO - One provides you with a scout QB for practice. He will never be active except as the 3rd QB in any game. In 2007 he will NEVER see the field with the Possible except to kneel down at the end of game.

OTOH, Wesley was a guy who excelled on special teams. He was a decent big CB who could have helped in red zone situations would have mitigated his lack of blazing speed and quickness. He also showed up pretty well as a cover corner and tackler in the last preseason game. A good guy to have against some of the larger WRs we play. reportedly he also could play S. Not a bad depth guy.

BTW- I not arguing for Wesley in particular, a case could be made for Rogers, Caldwell or some guy some another team cut. I'm just using Wesley as an exemplar.

Now what's your arguement for keeping Gutts. Make me understand??????

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Maybe I'm not being articulate enough. My issue is NOT about how good Gutts or Cassell might become. They might be all pros some day. What I am saying is that NEITHER will ever be a regular starter on this team....EVER, no matter how good they become. For the next 5-8 years TOM BRADY will be the QB on this team...PERIOD.

Neither will Dante Wesley or Bill would have used the OTHER available roster spot to keep him.

This issue as I see it, is using a very important and rare roster spot on a guy who's highest potential use is to replace Matt Cassell as the back up in 3 years!

His highest potential use is to be the single most important backup player on the roster, maybe as soon as next season but no later than 2009. All I can gather from your persistence is that you simply do not have a clue when it comes to evaluating NFL QB potential, and you have less than a clue about what it entails to functionally be one here. And you honestly believe you know more about constructing a roster than a HC headed to Canton. LOL

I think I'm the only one who completely understands what you're saying. And I do agree with it. The Pats backup QB position will be nothing but a revolving door while Brady is here, starting and able.

Just look at Brett Favre in his whole tenure with Green Bay: the team never needed to use their backups. I see the same here in New England.

Our backup QB situation has been stable for 3 seasons now, since they kept the kid who hadn't played since HS but was recruited by USC on the 53 man roster.

Green Bay would have been better off had they used some of their backups more often. One of them turned out to be a SB starter after Holmgren traded to take him with him when he left Brett and GB, and beat the favre out of him for a couple of more seasons.

Just because you don't have to use your insurance poicy does not mean you should not have an insurance policy.

Yup, and sometimes that coverage is transferrable (see Holmgren moves to Seattle, takes Hasselback with him to become his next franchise QB at his new franchise mailing address and gets back to the Superbowl before GB ever did).

 

[Vern]

Now what's your arguement for keeping Gutts. Make me understand??????

If Brady is injured, you'd have no backup QB. Last year keeping 2 QBs was touted as "risky" for this very reason.

Also, having a third QB also gives you a 46th player to activate on game day (the 3rd QB doesn't count). So this is somewhat a battle between the value of a 45th best player (who can now be activated) vs. the future value of the "54th" player being there for some future year or late into the season.

That's a pretty interesting debate. Particularly when you put it all into context. The fall off between the last roster spot and walk-ons is not much to get excited about.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Patriots have backups (the insurance policy) for Brady since 2001, right?

But thats not the point I'm making... I'm just making a general prediction like patfanken did here. We'll see in at least 5 years from now to know if patfanken and I are correct or not in that the Pats backups may not be needed in a meaningful game.

BITE YOUR TONGUE. :bricks:

WTH do you think every team in the league carries at least 1 but the majority carry 2 backups? Redundant backups you would call them in business if you ran a business well. Why woud you fail to carry that kind of depth behind the single most important player on the roster, especially as he enters his 30's having been smacked around a lot more than he should have been over the last couple of seasons? To temp fate in hopes of proving a point? LOL

Just because you might get away with something doesn't make it right. Kinda like the lesson Rodney learned the hard way this week. I don't ever want this team to learn that lesson the hard way. We won't win a Superbowl with a backup to Brady, but one that can keep this team on track for a couple of weeks in a pinch could mean the difference between getting Brady's team to the playoffs or wasting his efforts to get back.

I know Vinny is on speed dial, but that's because he isn't worth a roster spot unless Brady goes down. He played about the same as Gutierrez against the dregs of the Giants roster - after 300 years in the league. Gutierrez however has upside that can't be developed on speed dial. They had reason to believe he would not make it through waivers, contrary to any opinion Ken may have expressed. So it's likely the only roster spot he jeopardized was Vinny's.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

However its still weak to let another man present your arguement.

Oh please Ken, footnotes and endnotes are out of style now? You've chosen to argue past history, the man who carries the burden of that decision made it using information to which we are not privy, including his plans for the future.

At this very moment you might make a weak case that a third string CB has more apparent value than a third string QB, but history, in the person of one Tommy Brady, has a footnote known as Drew Bledsoe/Mo Lewis ca. 2001 to point to the value of retaining a 4th string QB to develop in the prior year - history might also point to the importance of retaining a third string CB, say a Randall Gay ca. 2004.

What your argument boils down to: CB is more important than QB. Position history is clearly weighted against you. Come to the dark side Luke.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

My opinion is that BB is not sold on Cassel and thus Gutts gets to stick around, kinda like some other guy hung around in 2000 as the fourth QB.....

In which case, maybe you should be arguing that Cassel is the guy wasting a roster space.

 

[mgteich]

How exactly is the best way to develop a backup QB for the 2009? Arguably, the best way is to give a young prospect a couple of years to develop. If we don't like what we see, we can get another next year. If we DO like what we see, then he will be ready to be a backup in 2009 or even in 2008, since we would now have the reasonable of option of moving Cassell. As it is, Cassell is likely to play for us next year for a couple of million dollars and move on to another team in 2009.

It seems to me that #3 QB is fine use of a roster spot. And as was stated, this choice does NOT replace anyone from the active roster. Most other choices for the #53 spot would likely be inactive all year.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

How As it is, Cassell is likely to play for us next year for a couple of million dollars and move on to another team in 2009.

You seem to have developed a mental block about Cassel's contract (to go along with the spelling of his name... His rookie deal runs THROUGH 2008, so he will be here on a minimum salary deal until 2009 UNLESS someone makes Bill an offer he can't refuse and Bill likes the guy he kept on the roster to develop this year to replace him.

 

[mgteich]

OK, so he'll be here through 2008, unless bb is offered a 1st rounder or more. In any case, we need to develop a backup for 2009, and the 53rd roster spot seems an appropriate way to do so. Do you disagree?

You seem to have developed a mental block about Cassel's contract (to go along with the spelling of his name... His rookie deal runs THROUGH 2008, so he will be here on a minimum salary deal until 2009 UNLESS someone makes Bill an offer he can't refuse and Bill likes the guy he kept on the roster to develop this year to replace him.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

OK, so he'll be here through 2008, unless bb is offered a 1st rounder or more. In any case, we need to develop a backup for 2009, and the 53rd roster spot seems an appropriate way to do so. Do you disagree?

Nope, I think it's the best possible use for that spot, although it might not take a 1st to move Cassel who was a 7th.

 

[psychoPat]

Re: Knee jerk reations.....

.... Cassel and Gutierrez are perfect backups for Brady because they are essentially blank slates who can make all the throws, have exhibited similar work ethic to the guy they are backing up and they are being groomed to read defenses, make good decisions, avoid stupid mistakes, manage a game. One of the requisites both have is the capacity to check any ego and illusions at the door. They provide value on this roster ....

Few QB's make it into the league each year and stick at any level even in a league starved for functional talent at the position. It's the position most difficult to draft for successfully while remaining the single most important position on the field - not to mention the single most important backup position on the roster. ....

It has been a number of years since i last thought of comparing a post here
to a scholarly treatise.
(That was rookBoston on value drafting.)
This comes close, Mo.
Long for a post. Short for a treatise. Commendably well pointed.

And you persuaded me ... formerly an adherent of the "Wesley to the roster, Gutierrez to the p/s" school.

Actually, i've THOUGHT most of your points - just not all at once.
I'm glad we've got Bill ... Tom ... both Matts ... and you.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I think you missed my point, Clev. It has NOTHING to do with Harrison. I'm just broaching the question of whether using HGH to quicken the healing process is different than using cortizone, or electronic stimulus machines. If HGH isn't used to artificially improve strength or speed, why is it banned? The issue of Harrison is dead and gone. My question is about the future....and on THAT basis, I'm interested in YOUR opinion...as well as others.

Then it is good that Harrison is serving his suspension.

That way, the legions of medical experts who say HGH is fine and dandy, and the legions of sports experts who say everybody uses it, but only Rodney Harrison got caught, can get together with Goodell and get rid of the ridiculous ban.

When that happens, it will be okay to use HGH just like you use electronic stimulus machines.

If all the rosy information is correct -- that it's okay when prescribed and administered correctly, etc. -- there is no reason the league will continue it's absurd and unenforceable ban.

Unless of course spade-like hands and facial deformities (for instance) are something they'd rather not see come out of "bad" use of HGH.

How about the guy who gets "hooked," and figures it's just for oh, three injury-riddled years at the end of his career... and then can't understand why he suddenly looks like a bloody Tolkein character?

How is this any different from urging the player with three concussions in the last month to practice with the team, full contact (just for example?) You don't think there'll be a Ted Johnson in the future (btw, I made up the 3 concussions in a month -- I don't know exactly what Ted's tally was...) But - you don't think a future Ted Johnson will blame his bizarre later-life appearance on "pressure to use HGH"? And that's to say nothing about his heart and kidney problems...

By allowing HGH you're urging players to go past sports medicine, in a field that's already heartless and profit driven. Those guys go out and play with what should be unimaginable pain... helped along by a league-approved shot. There's a league-wide hubbub about concussions. When is enough enough? Pain exists for a reason.

No, dude. HGH isn't the wonder drug of the 21st century. It's the flavor of the day, another way to take a hyper-competitive sports world and make it more -- not less -- dangerous for players.

While I'm not a fan of drawing players' blood to test, on search-and-seizure grounds, I do think those found using HGH, however it happens, should continue to serve the suspension.

Nothing to do with Rodney, just looking at the future.

PFnV

 

[patsfan209]

BITE YOUR TONGUE. :bricks:

:wha: Why should I, Mo? Last I checked this a forum in which everyone can freely express their opinions.

Why would you fail to carry that kind of depth behind the single most important player on the roster, especially as he enters his 30's having been smacked around a lot more than he should have been over the last couple of seasons?

You forgot that BB could in the future bring in a veteran QB that has some years of experience as the 1st string backup, regardless if its starting experience or not. Did you forget Damon Huard? He was never a "born" part of this system. Grooming your Patriot-born passers like a Brady, Kingsbury, and Davey is never the only options out there.

Just because you might get away with something doesn't make it right. Kinda like the lesson Rodney learned the hard way this week. I don't ever want this team to learn that lesson the hard way.

Do you want something bad to happen? I certainly don't, but BB wouldn't assign Cassel and Davey before him as Brady's backup if he didn't feel they could cut it.

Nope, I think it's the best possible use for that spot, although it might not take a 1st to move Cassel who was a 7th.

Oh, for you to say with Cassel here 3 years the Pats backup QB situation is "stable," and at the same time you want to trade him down the line like the Patriots QB corp is a produce market?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

:wha: Why should I, Mo? Last I checked this a forum in which everyone can freely express their opinions.

The comment related to your fate tempting comment about whether or not you and ken would be proved right and the Pats would not need a backup to Brady. Bad karma.

Why would you fail to carry that kind of depth behind the single most important player on the roster, especially as he enters his 30's having been smacked around a lot more than he should have been over the last couple of seasons?

You forgot that BB could in the future bring in a veteran QB that has some years of experience as the 1st string backup, regardless if its starting experience or not. Did you forget Damon Huard? He was never a "born" part of this system. Grooming your Patriot-born passers like a Brady, Kingsbury, and Davey is never the only options out there.

Huard was adopted at an early age and exposed to the system as Drew's backup before being LAPPED on the depth chart by by BB's biolocical QB. He left here because he wanted to start and he wanted more money than BB was interested in paying a backup ($1.5M in 2004). His new 3 year deal with KC is for 3 years and $7.5M ($3.5M in bonus and salary this season). Cassel and Gutierrez combined are making $750K between them.

Grooming is never the only option, but if you find a youngster who grooms up well it is the best from a value standpoint. Cassel is BB's property for 4 years at $1.4M total. Gutierrez is BB's for two years at minimum salary, and can be retained via tenders through year 4. Kingsbury and Davey are prime examples of how hard it is to find college prospects with NFL potential at the position. And there aren't many QB's in the league today, including starters, who clearly possess the particular qualities required to run this system. Old habits and bad habits die hard. And fewer still who would want to play here because they prefer to play in a system in which they are comfortable, on a team without a durable HOF QB who may never afford them an opportunity to get on the field to pad their own resume, and for an organization willing to overpay them for potentially holding a clipboard and running a scout team.


Do you want something bad to happen? I certainly don't, but BB wouldn't assign Cassel and Davey before him as Brady's backup if he didn't feel they could cut it.

BB knew Davey couldn't cut it, but unfortunately the veteran QB he signed to cover that contingency was never able to rebound fully from his shoulder injury so he served as the #3 by default, which is the same way Davey got to be the #2.


Oh, for you to say with Cassel here 3 years the Pats backup QB situation is "stable," and at the same time you want to trade him down the line like the Patriots QB corp is a produce market?

I never said I wanted to trade Cassel. But the reality is after 4 years he'll be a FA in 2009 and if Belichick is offered value for him in trade after 3 seasons he may want to move him then. He can't do that unless he knows he has his replacement on the roster. It's harder to hold on to veteran backups than those you draft and groom. 3 years is considered stability at that position. Look at Culpepper in Oakland - he wanted a 1 year deal to revive his career, not a long term deal in Oakland. The only reason Huard recently re-signed in KC was because he knew Greene was gone and he had the inside track on starting there this year. The only QB's without agendas are the ancient warriors like Flutie and Vinny. Eventually though they retire, and more often they should sooner unless they are basically serving as the #3 mentor or #4 (shadow roster) QB...

BTW BB has long wanted to open his own QB produce market as a means to add draft value because it's very smart business.

 

[patsfan209]

BTW BB has long wanted to open his own QB produce market as a means to add draft value because it's very smart business.

I hope this is just your opinion, because its laughable.

Just because BB managed to trade Bledsoe for a 1st round pick doesn't mean the Pats trades QBs "all the time." So how did the trade attempts with Davey and Kingsbury come along?

Seriously though I expect the way Cassel is going to leave this team is to be either [1] released or [2] his contract to expire in the end.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Seriously though I expect the way Cassel is going to leave this team is to be either [1] released or [2] his contract to expire in the end.

Then the team and the fans got their monies worth...how is that a bad thing?