[This was inspired by the talk of current RFA Adam Seward.] Last year, the Pats signed Justin Rogers to a three-year deal, unlike all the other rookies, who were signed for the maximum length of time (4-5 years). If you think about it, it doesn't make much sense for either side to do this just for giggles: Rogers would be foregoing about $25K in the one time he'd be guaranteed any money at all, while for the team, they would risk either losing him after three years, or having to shell out more for his final year. So, there has to be a reason for the Patriots to depart from their MO. Two plausible scenarios occurred to me (it could be a combination of both): Confidence on Rogers' part--he felt that he could stick on an NFL roster long enough that he was willing to risk the $25K or so for a chance at a larger salary in year 4 (either by being signed long-term or being given an RFA tender). Preparation on the Patriots' part--it is quite possible that the Pats knew they probably wouldn't be able to keep Rogers, but wanted to make it easier for them to 'reclaim' him if he proved himself. When the Cowboys claimed him off waivers, they inherited his Pats' contract; so, unless they redo the contract, he will be an RFA after the 2009 season. Do either/both of these sound plausible? Or are there other possible scenarios I'm missing?