The 45 Man Squad - & The Final Choices

[DaBruinz]

My point was that Alexander would be playing for someone else soon after we cut him. He is not going to play Seau's role waiting around for Belichick's call to play a few games. Alexander is still a reasonably competent special teamer.

I agree that Wendell has not exactly been aweinspiring; ditto for LeVoir. But they do know the system, and dante is comfortable with them. There is a REASON why Ojinnaka and Ghiaciuc are on the squad. They may make the squad and be starters if players are injured.

Sorry, MG, but that is a big assumption on your part. There are guys cut every year who people think "oh, they'll be playing for someone," yet their phone never rings..

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Tough is it?

You are inventing a whole defense if you need seven active DL's for any games. I've only been watching this team for 30 years but I don't think we've ever had seven defensive linemen active. Why would a game play require seven DL's? I don't think all six were ever active last year, although it is possible that six were active and one didn't get any reps.

We do not have defensive reps for more than five defensive linemen. The primary reason for that is the many of the reps go to linebackers. As you know, only 5 defensive linemen were involved in more than 25% of the defensive reps last year. The #6 was in on only 5% of the reps.

We will see soon. If we do have seven defensive linemen, I would expect it to be temporary.

Who said "need" discussing the active 45? I prefer to keep 7 DL for this season because I don't want to see the team scrambling to sign a warm body mid-season, an event neither of us has enjoyed when it's occurred in the past. There have been a fair number of the NE opening day rosters with 7 DL on them and I don't see that my projected roster is any more or less valid in that regard than yours - and if either one of us is spot-on, I'd allow that our reasons for our roster decisions are unlikely to be even close to BB's. I bow to your memory if you can not recall a game where the 45 included 7 DL, I could see it happening if BB felt he did not need to cut a DL to bring up or sign someone at another position.

 

[mgteich]

It isn't an assumption. It is an opinion.

Yes, there are players every year who never get the call and remain unemployed.

Sorry, MG, but that is a big assumption on your part. There are guys cut every year who people think "oh, they'll be playing for someone," yet their phone never rings..

 

[DaBruinz]

It isn't an assumption. It is an opinion.

Yes, there are players every year who never get the call and remain unemployed.

Regardless of the fact that it's your opinion, it's still an assumption by you.

 

[mgteich]

In the end, I have no real problem keeping a developmental DE on the roster. They are indeed hard to find. I am not sure that we need Lewis. If we keep seven DL's, we will lose a special teamer. belichick will make the right choice with regard to the team need for another special teamer or for a developmental lineman.

With regard to warm bodies mid-season, we needed that last year because we chose to carry TWO developmental players, neither of which was able to contribute at NT when there was an injury early in the season. Both players are now able to fill in at NT if need be.

With regard to the 45, I understand that there will be times when the 6th or 7th DL will need to play special teams and be active. I just don't like it much. I just don't think we've ever had to go down to the 7th DL as an active special teamer.

The BOTTOM LINE is that we agree almost completely on the roster and even more so on the issues involved.

Who said "need" discussing the active 45? I prefer to keep 7 DL for this season because I don't want to see the team scrambling to sign a warm body mid-season, an event neither of us has enjoyed when it's occurred in the past. There have been a fair number of the NE opening day rosters with 7 DL on them and I don't see that my projected roster is any more or less valid in that regard than yours - and if either one of us is spot-on, I'd allow that our reasons for our roster decisions are unlikely to be even close to BB's. I bow to your memory if you can not recall a game where the 45 included 7 DL, I could see it happening if BB felt he did not need to cut a DL to bring up or sign someone at another position.

 

[Deus Irae]

One thing we're seeing again is the annual overrating of the backups. I just hope the starters are as good as some of the hype, and they can stay healthy, so those backups don't come into play.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

MCKENZIE
McKenzie can be developed on ST's so there is no waste???? Isn't that true of almost any player? I think that Mckenzie will indeed make the roster. And yes, he will play special teams when there are injuries, significantly weakening the special teams. It isn't rocket science to believe that Alexander would be much more valuable this year and next than McKenzie. But, we can see how many reps he gets this year, outside of garbage time.

DEADERICK
Keep him instead of Lewis if he is good enough. After all, the 6th DL gets almost no reps (5% last year). We have two developing youngsters from last year who will likely play more this year. BTW, when was the last time we carried 7 DL's and how many reps did the 6th and 7th DL's get in that year.

And just BTW, if you aren't concerned with Deaderick passing through waivers, then what is the advantage of him on the inactive roster instead of the Practice Squad?

If Wheatley isn't worth a roster spot, then fine. He'll play for someone this year, whether or not he passing though waivers this week. There are lots of teams that could use him as their dime back or emergency 10th defensive back.

According to the team rosters 2001-2009 they carried at least 7 DL every year except 2008. That would include McGinnest a couple of years and Burgess last year but there definetly is a precedent for keeping 7 DL. I think Deaderick makes the opening day roster whether they keep 6 or 7. I also think McKenzie makes it at LB. I don't think Alexander's "reasonably competent" play on ST is good enough to justify cutting a 2009 3rd rounder with potential. I guess we'll find out soon.

Official New England Patriots - Team / - Roster Reports

 

[mgteich]

We ALL want us to carry at least seven linemen, including Burgess. No one is suggesting six. We are counting Burgess as a LB and therefore wanting at least six DL's. The question is whether to have one more than the norm.


SEVEN DEFENSIVE LINEMEN INCLUDING BURGESS
Wright, Wilfork, Warren, Brace, Pryor, Burgess, Lewis or Deaderick

QUOTE=Armchair Quarterback;2046138]According to the team rosters 2001-2009 they carried at least 7 DL every year except 2008. That would include McGinnest a couple of years and Burgess last year but there definetly is a precedent for keeping 7 DL. I think Deaderick makes the opening day roster whether they keep 6 or 7. I also think McKenzie makes it at LB. I don't think Alexander's "reasonably competent" play on ST is good enough to justify cutting a 2009 3rd rounder with potential. I guess we'll find out soon.

Official New England Patriots - Team / - Roster Reports[/QUOTE]

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

We ALL want us to carry at least seven linemen, including Burgess. No one is suggesting six. We are counting Burgess as a LB and therefore wanting at least six DL's. The question is whether to have one more than the norm.


SEVEN DEFENSIVE LINEMEN INCLUDING BURGESS
Wright, Wilfork, Warren, Brace, Pryor, Burgess, Lewis or Deaderick

QUOTE=Armchair Quarterback;2046138]According to the team rosters 2001-2009 they carried at least 7 DL every year except 2008. That would include McGinnest a couple of years and Burgess last year but there definetly is a precedent for keeping 7 DL. I think Deaderick makes the opening day roster whether they keep 6 or 7. I also think McKenzie makes it at LB. I don't think Alexander's "reasonably competent" play on ST is good enough to justify cutting a 2009 3rd rounder with potential. I guess we'll find out soon.

Official New England Patriots - Team / - Roster Reports

With no Ty Warren and no Seymour I still think they will go with 7 DL in addition to Burgess. I only mentioned Burgess because he was listed as a DE on the 2009 roster. Wilfork at the nose is the only bona fide starter on the DL. G.Warren and Mike Wright are not Ty and Seymour, not even close. I think they'll go with safety in numbers with more depth and keep 7, if they choose to only keep 6 I think it would be Lewis who is cut.

Wilfork
Wright
Warren
Brace
Pryor
Deaderick
Lewis