Pats Claim DTs Quarles & Gaston (Update: Both Released)

[hwc]

Still wondering why they dumped Kelly when Belichick fells like "they don't have enough depth at that position"...

I can think of two reasons:

a) He was late for a practice. Maybe there were issues of that sort.
b) Nothing left in the tank, at his age, coming off ACL reconstruction.

 

[DaBruinz]

So, 3 of the guys the Pats added to the Roster and PS are gone already.. And the Pats are, again, back to having Ninkovich as their LS...

 

[RayClay]

Still wondering why they dumped Kelly when Belichick fells like "they don't have enough depth at that position"...

Because...he...is...33.

The Pats have brought in a bunch of DL recently. How many were anywhere close to 30? None.

 

[Marqui]

Because...he...is...33.

The Pats have brought in a bunch of DL recently. How many were anywhere close to 30? None.

So you're saying they need to cut Wilfork too?

 

[RayClay]

So you're saying they need to cut Wilfork too?

I knew someone would, without a thought in their head, say something like that.

Tell you what. What if i said, had Wilfork not been healthy, I think they would have kept Kelly. Could you figure out why?

 

[RayClay]

So you're saying they need to cut Wilfork too?

Actually Wilfork is younger than Kelly, so let me extend your logic here. If we cut Kelly because of his age, we absolutely have to cut Brady, he's four years older at 37!

 

[Ring 6]

This is something I'm very curious to see. Seems like a 4-3 really suits the personnel but I can't see Chandler or Rob with their hand down in a 3-4. If Miami is playing 3 WR, it'll be 4-2 presumably but with 2 TE, maybe some 3-4. I'll guess we'll just have to wait and see.

But that's the point actually. If we play 34 it will be with our 43 personnel. One of the DEs will stand up and be called an Olb but will do the same job he would do as a 43 DE. The other will play DE just as he would in a 43.
In other words whether you call it 34 or 43 the personnel will be the same and jones and nink will do the same thing whether they are in 34 or 43 or standing up it what you call them. This is not the 2 gap 34 of 5 to 10 years ago. The 2 DTs and 3 LBs would have slightly different alignment and responsibilities is 34 vs 43 but just slightly.

 

[Ring 6]

I can think of two reasons:

a) He was late for a practice. Maybe there were issues of that sort.
b) Nothing left in the tank, at his age, coming off ACL reconstruction.

I think it was pretty clear he was not nearly back to anywhere near 100% and it's possible he may never be.

 

[RayClay]

I think it was pretty clear he was not nearly back to anywhere near 100% and it's possible he may never be.

You know something we don't? He was signed two days after he was cut, by Arizona.

Here's an interesting article.

Kelly, who signed a one-year contract worth $955,000 with Arizona, said he “kinda asked” to be released by the New England Patriots on Aug. 24.
He had 22 tackles and 2.5 sacks in five starts last season in New England before tearing his ACL. Upon returning to training camp this year, Kelly resumed his role with the first team and started the first three preseason games.
But he could sense something was changing.

“I saw what was going on” Kelly said. “I mean, you’re starting me, but you’re taking me out. I don’t know why you're taking me out. I had a situation with my deal and I saw what he was doing, so I got on my agent and we got together and I was just happy.”
Kelly landed in Arizona, a team that was in need of depth on its defensive line and a spark in the pass rush ever since Darnell Dockett was lost for the season with a torn ACL suffered in training camp.

Playbook study making more sense to Arizona Cardinals DT Tommy Kelly - ESPN
Something was going on? Youth movement?

 

[supafly]

You know something we don't? He was signed two days after he was cut, by Arizona.

Here's an interesting article.


http://espn.go.com/blog/arizona-cardinals/post/_/id/8623/8623
Something was going on? Youth movement?

I would bet anything that Kelly was unhappy with the fact that Belichick was "taking him out" due to Kelly's inference of "having a situation with my deal," and "talking to his (my) agent."

In other words, there was likely a clause in his pact when he restructured in the spring that probably allowed for him to collect more money if he played a certain amount of snaps etc.

Why else would he ask to be released while pointing to his contract, agent, and the fact that they were taking him out after starting him? It sounds like he was suggesting that Belichick was purposely preventing him from reaching incentives, etc.

I think if you go back and re-read the article that you posted, you'll see it pretty clearly.

 

[RayClay]

I would bet anything that Kelly was unhappy with the fact that Belichick was "taking him out" due to Kelly's inference of "having a situation with my deal," and "talking to his (my) agent."

In other words, there was likely a clause in his pact when he restructured in the spring that probably allowed for him to collect more money if he played a certain amount of snaps etc.

Why else would he ask to be released while pointing to his contract, agent, and the fact that they were taking him out after starting him? It sounds like he was suggesting that Belichick was purposely preventing him from reaching incentives, etc.

I think if you go back and re-read the article that you posted, you'll see it pretty clearly.

If you had your All Pro back and were happy with the young players who rose to the occasion last year, not to mention your first round pick, knowing you had to replace that all pro in the near future, why would you hang on to a 33 year old who'd played 5 games and was coming off an injury?

Talk about seeing the writing on the wall.

The Patriots will likely not luck into a pick high enough to replace Wilfork, they'll need to find at least one diamond in the rough. Maybe the trio from last year, or one of the fistful they are cycling through every week.

Surely, a castoff that turns into a diamond isn't going to develop like that sitting while tommy Kelly plays. He can see that and told his agent to find a team that needs a seasoned veteran, and he did.

Even if Easly is an All pro, we're still short a quality starter unless at least one or two players develop and that's even if we keep using firsts, because a bottom round pick is not a sure thing (fingers crossed).

 

[supafly]

If you had your All Pro back and were happy with the young players who rose to the occasion last year, not to mention your first round pick, knowing you had to replace that all pro in the near future, why would you hang on to a 33 year old who'd played 5 games and was coming off an injury?

Talk about seeing the writing on the wall.

The Patriots will likely not luck into a pick high enough to replace Wilfork, they'll need to find at least one diamond in the rough. Maybe the trio from last year, or one of the fistful they are cycling through every week.

Surely, a castoff that turns into a diamond isn't going to develop like that sitting while tommy Kelly plays. He can see that and told his agent to find a team that needs a seasoned veteran, and he did.

Even if Easly is an All pro, we're still short a quality starter unless at least one or two players develop and that's even if we keep using firsts, because a bottom round pick is not a sure thing (fingers crossed).

While I can see what you're saying and definitely feel that youth came into the picture, what do you make of his statement that:

"I had a situation with my deal and I saw what he was doing."

To me, that sounds like he had some escalators or incentives in his new, restructured (lessened) deal that he knew he wasn't going to achieve; especially in the context that it was spoken in.

I think it's quite possible that youth AND lack of ability to reach those incentives may have been the winning combination in why he no longer wanted to be here.

Either way, nice find on the article.

 

[RayClay]

While I can see what you're saying and definitely feel that youth came into the picture, what do you make of his statement that:

"I had a situation with my deal and I saw what he was doing."

To me, that sounds like he had some escalators or incentives in his new, restructured (lessened) deal that he knew he wasn't going to achieve; especially in the context that it was spoken in.

I think it's quite possible that youth AND lack of ability to reach those incentives may have been the winning combination in why he no longer wanted to be here.

Either way, nice find on the article.

Maybe he was going to be kept until Easley and last years trio looked solid, and then dropped. None except Vellano had recent continuous practice. I'm not parsing everything he said

I think what i say is logical, unless you don't think BB plans for the future.

 

[Ring 6]

You know something we don't? He was signed two days after he was cut, by Arizona.

Here's an interesting article.


http://espn.go.com/blog/arizona-cardinals/post/_/id/8623/8623
Something was going on? Youth movement?

Aging player who slipped due to injury. No conspiracy theory the other players were better.

 

[RayClay]

Aging player who slipped due to injury. No conspiracy theory the other players were better.

Arizona?

 

[Ring 6]

If you had your All Pro back and were happy with the young players who rose to the occasion last year, not to mention your first round pick, knowing you had to replace that all pro in the near future, why would you hang on to a 33 year old who'd played 5 games and was coming off an injury?

Talk about seeing the writing on the wall.

The Patriots will likely not luck into a pick high enough to replace Wilfork, they'll need to find at least one diamond in the rough. Maybe the trio from last year, or one of the fistful they are cycling through every week.

Surely, a castoff that turns into a diamond isn't going to develop like that sitting while tommy Kelly plays. He can see that and told his agent to find a team that needs a seasoned veteran, and he did.

Even if Easly is an All pro, we're still short a quality starter unless at least one or two players develop and that's even if we keep using firsts, because a bottom round pick is not a sure thing (fingers crossed).

Why would we be short a starter if Easley and Wilfork are starters?

 

[RayClay]

Why would we be short a starter if Easley and Wilfork are starters?

Because Wilfork also ages. When he retires, they will have to replace him and likely won't have a top draft pick. Also, not to be ajinx, but Easley has played zero.

 

[supafly]

I'm not parsing everything he said

Understanding that everyone will have a different view of things and we're only speculating:

He directly talks about not understanding why he's starting--yet still being taken out. He then goes on to claim that "I had a situation with my deal, and I saw what he was doing."

I'm not sure why he'd go out of his way to bring up his contract unless it had some relevance to the situation.

 

[RayClay]

Understanding that everyone will have a different view of things and we're only speculating:

He directly talks about not understanding why he's starting--yet still being taken out. He then goes on to claim that "I had a situation with my deal, and I saw what he was doing." I'm not sure why he'd go out of his way to bring up his contract unless it had some relevance to the situation.

That doesn't contradict what I said, however. It could be part of the same situation.

 

[RayClay]

Aging player who slipped due to injury. No conspiracy theory the other players were better.

Three "other players" played almost none, or none of the preseason.