Let The OL Competition Begin!

[Ring 6]

1) Connolly's salary and contract length is an issue.
2) Kline is a proven inexpensive backup LG.
3) Wendell has the contract of a backup center.

A) If Connolly is clearly the best starting RG or starting C, then he will make the team, with our without a change in contract.

B) If Connolly is a $4M one-year backup, he might still make the team, but only if he is viewed significantly better than Wendell and Kline.

By the way, I'm not sure who you think takes Connollys job at RG.

 

[Fencer]

Would you keep Connolly as a $4M a year backup center?

Don't forget his kick-return skills!!

 

[mgteich]

We can afford the extra 3 mill to have a better #1 backup
I'm not sure how playing a game and a half and not totally crapping himself makes Kline 'proven' compared to a multiyear starter.


Well he is better than both of them, thats the point.

I understand your position and largely agree. Connolly is worth $4M to be a backup at two positions,especially since he has been a starter at both those positions.

As you might recall, I would keep Connolly for a more straighforward reason. I think that he is our best starting RG. I see no reason for a 1-year Cannon experiment. Connolly can start this year, with the expectation of one of the rookies starting next year.
==============

And just BTW, who do you think is capable of starting at LG other than Mankins?

 

[Fencer]

In general, I'd say OL isn't an area to skimp on roster slots. The three proven, major talents among the starters have patterns of injury and/or age.

The next tier of proven talents (Cannon, Connolly) are on 1-year deals.

 

[Deus Irae]

1) Connolly's salary and contract length is an issue.
2) Kline is a proven inexpensive backup LG.
3) Wendell has the contract of a backup center.

A) If Connolly is clearly the best starting RG or starting C, then he will make the team, with our without a change in contract.

B) If Connolly is a $4M one-year backup, he might still make the team, but only if he is viewed significantly better than Wendell and Kline.

Wendell sucks
Wendell has always sucked
The odds are very good that Wendell will continue to suck in the future
Wendell is also just a center, while Connolly can play multiple positions
Kline sucks, too, although he's at least young and could potentially improve

The team needs just 1 of the 3 draftees to hit, and then they can move on from Wendell (from a talent and versatility standpoint) or Connolly (from a financial standpoint), but Wendell should be the first to go, as of now, since money is not currently an issue.

Also, for the record, the $4 million number being tossed out is misleading. The actual numbers of importance are:

Connolly - $3 million
Wendell - $1.2 million (Well, Wendell's is really more fluid, but you get the point)

 

[mgteich]

No matter how many hundred times you say that Wendell sucks, Belichick doesn't seem to listen. He keeps on signing him to new contracts.

As I said above, let the competition begin.

In the end, we may only need to cut one, if no one get injured. I'm find with the odd man out being Wendell or Kline or Cannon or Halapio or Connolly.

Solder, Mankins, Wendell, Connolly, Vollmer
Kline, Cannon, Fleming, Halapio, Stork

Wendell sucks
Wendell has always sucked
The odds are very good that Wendell will continue to suck in the future
Wendell is also just a center, while Connolly can play multiple positions
Kline sucks, too, although he's at least young and could potentially improve

The team needs just 1 of the 3 draftees to hit, and then they can move on from Wendell (from a talent and versatility standpoint) or Connolly (from a financial standpoint), but Wendell should be the first to go, as of now, since money is not currently an issue.

Also, for the record, the $4 million number being tossed out is misleading. The actual numbers of importance
Connolly - $3 million
Wendell - $1.2 million (Well, Wendell's is really more fluid, but you get the point)

 

[mgteich]

You and I have always wanted to keep 9 OL's. I think that for the past couple of years, we have kept only 8, leaving us without a 4th OT (other than Mankins).

Given our injury situations, contract situations and the wish to carry 4 kids, I think that we should carry 9.

In general, I'd say OL isn't an area to skimp on roster slots. The three proven, major talents among the starters have patterns of injury and/or age.

The next tier of proven talents (Cannon, Connolly) are on 1-year deals.

 

[Deus Irae]

No matter how many hundred times you say that Wendell sucks, Belichick doesn't seem to listen. He keeps on signing him to new contracts.

Yeah, he loves him so much that he gave him a longterm megadeal, and the calls from everywhere else drove the price through the roof, which shows his greatness in the eyes of other teams.

Oh, wait...

As I said above, let the competition begin.

In the end, we may only need to cut one, if no one get injured. I'm find with the odd man out being Wendell or Kline or Cannon or Halapio or Connolly.

Solder, Mankins, Wendell, Connolly, Vollmer
Kline, Cannon, Fleming, Halapio, Stork

As of right now, they're carrying 3 QBS. Where are they going to make up that spot, if they're keeping that many OL?

 

[mgteich]

I wasn't aware of the need to be down to 53 players until Game 1.

At that point, we can make the final roster decisions. If you are asking ME to choose NOW, I would choose to carry 2 quarterbacks. Also, we could carry only 4 corners (since one will not count for 4 weeks) and sort out the roster position after Game 4.

Yeah, he loves him so much that he gave him a longterm megadeal, and the calls from everywhere else drove the price through the roof, which shows his greatness in the eyes of other teams.

Oh, wait...



As of right now, they're carrying 3 QBS. Where are they going to make up that spot, if they're keeping that many OL?

 

[ATippett56]

Yeah, he loves him so much that he gave him a longterm megadeal, and the calls from everywhere else drove the price through the roof, which shows his greatness in the eyes of other teams.

Oh, wait...



As of right now, they're carrying 3 QBS. Where are they going to make up that spot, if they're keeping that many OL?

Add Develin to the suck category.

 

[Deus Irae]

I wasn't aware of the need to be down to 53 players until Game 1.

At that point, we can make the final roster decisions. If you are asking ME to choose NOW, I would choose to carry 2 quarterbacks. Also, we could carry only 4 corners (since one will not count for 4 weeks) and sort out the roster position after Game 4.

If you're going to have a discussion, have an honest discussion. You were the one who was discussing how many would be cut: "In the end, we may only need to cut one". I was responding to that part of your post. When I'd mentioned possible cuts, I'd simply mentioned "the first to go" if one of the draftees were a hit.

 

[Deus Irae]

Add Develin to the suck category.

I was talking O-line. Having said that, Millard would have been a nice late pick/UDFA signing.

 

[ATippett56]

I was talking O-line. Having said that, Millard would have been a nice late pick/UDFA signing.

I mentioned Develin as an expendable for the 53 man roster in lieu of an offensive lineman.

 

[mgteich]

I'm fine with Wendell being the first cut if one of the rookies steps up.

You asked how I would get to have 9 OL's instead of last year's 8. I said that I would keep 2 QB's, or use a CB roster spot for awhile.

I don't think that we disagree.

If you're going to have a discussion, have an honest discussion. You were the one who was discussing how many would be cut: "In the end, we may only need to cut one". I was responding to that part of your post. When I'd mentioned possible cuts, I'd simply mentioned "the first to go" if one of the draftees were a hit.

 

[mgteich]

I mentioned Develin as an expendable for the 53 man roster in lieu of an offensive lineman.

This is a different issue. I do NOT favor using the FB roster spot for an OL.

I favor having 4 RB's and one FB. If we don't have a FB, I would want an additional RB or TE who take on this role.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm fine with Wendell being the first cut if one of the rookies steps up.

You asked how I would get to have 9 OL's instead of last year's 8. I said that I would keep 2 QB's, or use a CB roster spot for awhile.

I don't think that we disagree.

Although it's not good discussion fodder (though it will probably be great for "dislike" and "disagree" button usage), I think this roster has been set up so that, for good or ill, most of the position battles are already set up to play themselves out. I think mistakes have been made, but not as many as last year, and I'm hopeful that cuts from other teams, and maybe a delayed signing or two, will allow BB to fix what should already be fixed.

I'd expect the team to carry 8 OL again, but that's because I'm expecting Mallett to be there, until he isn't. That just seems like the way to go, given how he's still here post-draft. The CB spot is an interesting option if they cut two out of three from among Wilson, Chung and Ebner.

 

[mgteich]

Browner won't count for 4 weeks. By then someone will be ready for IR.

OK, we have Mallett now, and when we don't a position will open up for the 9th OL. I agree that if we keep 3 QB's, we are unlikely to keep 9 OL's, unless we use the CB option for a few weeks.

I expect a delayed signing or 2 or 3.

Although it's not good discussion fodder (though it will probably be great for "dislike" and "disagree" button usage), I think this roster has been set up so that, for good or ill, most of the position battles are already set up to play themselves out. I think mistakes have been made, but not as many as last year, and I'm hopeful that cuts from other teams, and maybe a delayed signing or two, will allow BB to fix what should already be fixed.

I'd expect the team to carry 8 OL again, but that's because I'm expecting Mallett to be there, until he isn't. That just seems like the way to go, given how he's still here post-draft. The CB spot is an interesting option if they cut two out of three from among Wilson, Chung and Ebner.

 

[scout]

Nice article on Stork in today's Herald.
http://bostonherald.com/sports/patr...iots/2014/05/patriots_focus_on_offensive_line

Played in pain with a torn muscle last year. One year played with a finger that almost needed amputation. When asked about it, he said, "its done with now, I'm healthy, so we don't need to talk about it". Cool.

 

[patriot lifer]

The decision to have 8 or 9 linemen is a function of 5 factors:

1) PUP Presense - A virtual 9th O-linemen could provide flexibility for starting with 8.

2) Positional Depth - How many players to have at a given position is not just a function of hitting some quota. Some positions are deeper than others, and the roster composition should reflect the strengths/assets of a team. Perhaps after the 8th O-linemen, there is a steep drop-off.

3) Player Versatility - Players that can play both tackle or guard always helps. We have that with Cannon and potentially Fleming, if he's good his rookie season.

4) Practice Squad Management - Josh Kline was called up from the PS twice last year.

5) Recent Injury history - More injuries warrants more roster spots.

Bear in mind that Gronk or other players may be on the PUP to start the year. Therefore, we may have only 2 TEs to start the year. For CB, Browner is out the first 4 games. After 4-6 games, a player may be on IR or in-season IR, which would make the decision and roster management easier to hold 9 linemen.

For reference, the Seattle Seahawks held 10 linemen to begin the 2013 season (granted this # likely dances around during the season). http://www.seahawks.com/news/articl...n-roster/ef6af9e9-c65a-4c0b-8af7-53378860f7ed

Conclusion: I think we keep 9 unless someone is on PUP. I don't know if we can expect rookies to start ahead of Wendel and Connolly week 1. Cannon could move inside, but who is our primary back-up tackle for our injury-happy tackles? The rookie Fleming? I foresee keeping the original 5, plus Cannon, and the 3 rookies. Kline is back to the PS, if he's still eligible. The 6th rounder could make it to the PS.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand your position and largely agree. Connolly is worth $4M to be a backup at two positions,especially since he has been a starter at both those positions.

As you might recall, I would keep Connolly for a more straighforward reason. I think that he is our best starting RG. I see no reason for a 1-year Cannon experiment. Connolly can start this year, with the expectation of one of the rookies starting next year.
==============

And just BTW, who do you think is capable of starting at LG other than Mankins?

I was responding to your post saying Connolly was competing with draft picks and Wendell and Kline were ahead of him.

Certainly Connolly would be a better LG than Kline.