Pats claim TE Jason Pociask off waivers from the Jets

[Deus Irae]

Again, these are hardly team shattering moves, and are by NO MEANS permanent. Why not sign a guy to a no risk situation with the knowledge you can simply drop him if something better comes along? Then, if something better DOESN'T come along, through no fault of the Pats (sometimes, believe it or not, you just can't get every ideal guy you want), you have SOMETHING, as opposed to scrambling for NOTHING.

Seriously, am I the only one who somehow isn't panicked or offended by these non-issues?

Dude, the moves suck.

 

[Sicilian]

Nope, but that doesn't mean many of us can't be very surprised by some of the names that are being cut, and some of the Who?s that are being signed. Doesn't necessarily mean panic, just surprise, curiosity, and the inevitable second guessing that is human/fan nature.

My comment was really aimed at people like you, more the ragin alcoholics who seem inclined to drink when the Pats sign some bum they've never heard of to be likely a temporary replacement for the 52nd and 53rd man

 

[Sicilian]

Dude, the moves suck.

If you're depending on these people as more than a roster spot warmer, then yes, I agree. I see no reason to think these guys are long term solutions. And by long term I mean more than 2-3 weeks.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Again, these are hardly team shattering moves, and are by NO MEANS permanent. Why not sign a guy to a no risk situation with the knowledge you can simply drop him if something better comes along? Then, if something better DOESN'T come along, through no fault of the Pats (sometimes, believe it or not, you just can't get every ideal guy you want), you have SOMETHING, as opposed to scrambling for NOTHING.

Seriously, am I the only one who somehow isn't panicked or offended by these non-issues?

I'm not panicked or offended at all, but some of the cuts have made it a rather interesting day, so I think people here are just trying to make sense of it all.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you're depending on these people as more than a roster spot warmer, then yes, I agree. I see no reason to think these guys are long term solutions. And by long term I mean more than 2-3 weeks.

Anything more than 2-3 nanoseconds is a mistake.

 

[Sicilian]

Anything more than 2-3 nanoseconds is a mistake.

So, let's say god forbid the other players they want either A) are claimed ahead of them or B) are free agents that don't want to play here (there are a few of them you know). You'd rather go into the season with empty spots?

Conversely, if people we want more are available and end up in our hands, these guys are easy to cut loose without regret.

There is ZERO risk with these moves, especially given they likely won't be on the active roster even for the games they stick around for.

Curiosity is one thing, but people are acting like BB and Pioli have gone senile. It's an overreaction to say the very least.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Dude, the moves suck.

That's an awfully definitive statement for someone who chooses their words so carefully (usually)...so far, those released were not contributors to 16-0, nor had they shown anything in PS to suggest they were serious replacements for losses in 16-0 (or upgrades, which is really what you have to hope for). Losing Lynch means maybe they think the versatility of Mayo means we didn't need him. Or maybe they like Slater. Who knows. Maybe it's a mistake. Maybe he's signed before week 2 and it's just a financial issue. Maybe K. Washington and Slater and Ventrone make us forget about CJack. I know Slater on KR made me forget him. And watching PS, which I will 100% grant is no real gauge, I thought Ventrone in the slot showed enough promise that he could possibly be put in as a #4. And finally in the Gints game, the fact that Washington was in as #4 suggests that maybe, in practice, the coaches saw enough that they felt his versatility (let's face it, CJack didn't excel in ST on any level that we saw) outweighed the very small difference in what they saw in their skills on offense. Ultimately, all 3 of the guys we kept show the versatility to at least play 2 ways, and some 3 ways, whereas CJack had only really showed flashes 1 way...while I was surprised, I can't say I'm disappointed.

 

[spacecrime]

Again, these are hardly team shattering moves, and are by NO MEANS permanent. Why not sign a guy to a no risk situation with the knowledge you can simply drop him if something better comes along? Then, if something better DOESN'T come along, through no fault of the Pats (sometimes, believe it or not, you just can't get every ideal guy you want), you have SOMETHING, as opposed to scrambling for NOTHING.

Seriously, am I the only one who somehow isn't panicked or offended by these non-issues?

I'm not panicked and I have no issue with any of the changes, but they aren't risk free. The price of signing a guy is that you have to cut someone else. If he doesn't work out and you "simply drop him" you may or may not be albe to get back the guy you cut to have a look at the guy who didn't work out.

If this guy doesn't work out, and Harrison gets his knee blown out in game 1 and Lynch has already been signed, this move would not only NOT be risk free, it would be a catastrophe.

It's a gamble. A good gamble, but still a gamble, and deinately not risk free.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

My comment was[n't?] really aimed at people like you, more the ragin alcoholics who seem inclined to drink when the Pats sign some bum they've never heard of to be likely a temporary replacement for the 52nd and 53rd man

Hey, I'm as ragin an alcoholic as you'll find, hell I'll drink to anything. Doesn't mean we should panic on the signing or releasing of some guys who probably won't even be active for 13-16 games this year

 

[spacecrime]

It's an overreaction to say the very least.

It's what we do here, and we do it better than any other fan base in the world.

 

[Sicilian]

Hey, I'm as ragin an alcoholic as you'll find, hell I'll drink to anything. Doesn't mean we should panic on the signing or releasing of some guys who probably won't even be active for 13-16 games this year

Haha, hey, you wanna drink to the start of the season, I'm right there with ya. Hell, you wanna drink in panic at the mere SUGGESTION that Brady might miss a game (as discussed in the rumor thread), I'll even jump on that.

Drinking over these moves is sad, even for me

 

[Urgent]

There is ZERO risk with these moves, especially given they likely won't be on the active roster even for the games they stick around for.

Curiosity is one thing, but people are acting like BB and Pioli have gone senile. It's an overreaction to say the very least.

Other than, say, losing out on John Lynch.

Will a 6'-3" tight end with seven career receiving yards offer a better receiving option than Vrabel, or a better blocker than Britt -- and a more valuable contributor than Lynch?

I'm delighted that the team didn't lose Redd, but that was a risk. He could have been picked up by another team. So does this guy deserve a slot ahead of Redd or Spann, or Lynch?

There's a very predictable pattern on this site.

The Patriots make a questionable decision.
Fans discuss it.
Some raise debate the downside and risks.
Then there is an immediate knee-jerk over-reaction calling those questioners "Chicken Little."
You can follow two-thirds of the threads here and watch the same pattern.

Guys - it's a questionable move.

 

[Mack Herron]

Pociask was supposed to be one of the best blocking TEs coming out of college. A replacement for K. Brady is especially important not only given the injury to Watson but also because our tackles have been either hurt or turnstyles and protecting (an injured and less mobile) Brady is job #1.

 

[Deus Irae]

So, let's say god forbid the other players they want either A) are claimed ahead of them or B) are free agents that don't want to play here (there are a few of them you know). You'd rather go into the season with empty spots?

Conversely, if people we want more are available and end up in our hands, these guys are easy to cut loose without regret.

There is ZERO risk with these moves, especially given they likely won't be on the active roster even for the games they stick around for.

Curiosity is one thing, but people are acting like BB and Pioli have gone senile. It's an overreaction to say the very least.

They just picked up a tackle the Rams let go. Are you getting this? I'm 40 years old, and I've got a long-term hip injury that prevents me from even putting my right sock on normally. My phone rang about 30 seconds ago, and it was probably the Rams calling me to ask if I'd tryout for the tackle job. But they cut this guy.

Belioli, though, freed up a roster spot to sign him. That's not zero risk. As Zeke noted about my post:

That's an awfully definitive statement for someone who chooses their words so carefully (usually)

I don't go Chicken Little. I was one of the few Cassel defenders during the exhibition games. However, I call them as I see them. These moves suck. Get back to me if others are made and I'll tell you if these moves still suck.

 

[Sicilian]

Other than, say, losing out on John Lynch.

Will a 6'-3" tight end with seven career receiving yards offer a better receiving option than Vrabel, or a better blocker than Britt -- and a more valuable contributor than Lynch?

I'm delighted that the team didn't lose Redd, but that was a risk. He could have been picked up by another team. So does this guy deserve a slot ahead of Redd or Spann, or Lynch?

There's a very predictable pattern on this site.

The Patriots make a questionable decision.
Fans discuss it.
Some raise debate the downside and risks.
Then there is an immediate knee-jerk over-reaction calling those questioners "Chicken Little."
You can follow two-thirds of the threads here and watch the same pattern.

Guys - it's a questionable move.

Your progression is likely valid, but I'll say again, I'm not talking to the people who are making rational points. I'm saying it to the people who instantly start acting like this is the downfall of the patriots. NOBODY on this forum knows that the Lynch/Jackson moves were made specifically to get these two guys. Jackson has never really panned out, and BB let him go. We're hearing reports from Reiss that Lynch may be back and this is an accounting move. There's NO evidence to support that these moves are related AT ALL. It's all speculation at this point, in either direction.

They just picked up a tackle the Rams let go. Are you getting this? I'm 40 years old, and I've got a long-term hip injury that prevents me from even putting my right sock on normally. My phone rang about 30 seconds ago, and it was probably the Rams calling me to ask if I'd tryout for the tackle job. But they cut this guy.

Exaggeration is never a good way to make an argument, at least not to me. They picked up a body in the event that nothing else pans out. Are YOU getting THIS?

 

[Deus Irae]

Exaggeration is never a good way to make an argument, at least not to me. They picked up a body in the event that nothing else pans out. Are YOU getting THIS?

Likely far better than you. I didn't claim zero risk when other players and roster spots are lost over guys who can't stick with lousy teams and aren't claimed by 30 other possible squads.

 

[JAYHAWKS34]

Re: Pats claim tight end Jason Pociask off waivers from the Jets

Can someone get me another beer?

grab one for everybody

 

[Sicilian]

Likely far better than you. I didn't claim zero risk when other players and roster spots are lost over guys who can't stick with lousy teams and aren't claimed by 30 other possible squads.

And I've told you I don't believe they were so thrilled with the players they cut that they would care if they weren't available later. Lynch might be the exception, but there's a possibility that he might be back anyway.

Perhaps zero risk was a bit extreme, but can anyone honestly say that these moves will have a major impact on the season? And if so, who's to say there's not a plan? I'm not going after the people calling it questionable, I'm going after those who are panicking because the Pats have dared to pick up a player that might not stick.

 

[Deus Irae]

And I've told you I don't believe they were so thrilled with the players they cut that they would care if they weren't available later. Lynch might be the exception, but there's a possibility that he might be back anyway.

Perhaps zero risk was a bit extreme, but can anyone honestly say that these moves will have a major impact on the season? And if so, who's to say there's not a plan? I'm not going after the people calling it questionable, I'm going after those who are panicking because the Pats have dared to pick up a player that might not stick.

Who's panicking on this thread? did I miss that post? Not a single post was someone panicking, but you came in and acted as if everyone but you had gone insane. The moves suck. Saying so is not panic.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

Again, these are hardly team shattering moves, and are by NO MEANS permanent. Why not sign a guy to a no risk situation with the knowledge you can simply drop him if something better comes along? Then, if something better DOESN'T come along, through no fault of the Pats (sometimes, believe it or not, you just can't get every ideal guy you want), you have SOMETHING, as opposed to scrambling for NOTHING.

Seriously, am I the only one who somehow isn't panicked or offended by these non-issues?

I'm with you..