The Practice Squad

[patchick]

Every year we have our undrafted free agents who just can't possibly make it to the Practice Squad. A couple of our UDFA's are always so great that other teams would put them on their 53 instead of their draftees or those cut by other teams.

Please list all the patriots UDFA's from the Belichick era who were claimed by another team for their 53 before the first game.

Mgteich, I think you're artificially skewing this very real topic by limiting it to UDFAs. E.g., Bo Ruud was actually drafted but I haven't heard a soul here who thinks he'll make the 53, while UDFA Guyton is a popular fan choice. 6th-rounder Justin Rogers was very lightly regarded as a draft prospect but was a fan favorite after his camp performance; UDFA Freddie Roach was a huge favorite pre-camp but nobody gave him a shot after seeing him on the field.

EDIT: just recalled Mincey vs. Woods, a clear-cut case where fans knew the UDFA was outperforming the draft pick at the same position.

IOW, by the final cutdown date the difference between a late pick and a UDFA is immaterial -- to the Pats, to the fans, and to other teams that have seen the same things we have (and doubtless much more). The more interesting universe IMO isn't all UDFAs, but all rookie fan binkies: UDFAs + late draft picks whom PatsFans readers have gotten all dreamy about. Are these irrational crushes that prove meaningless come cut-down time, or are we right to fret over the likes of Gary Guyton?

So let's look at recent camp crush-objects. 2007 IIRC it was Rogers, Richardson, Elgin and Gutierrez. 1 was injured; 1 made the roster; 1 was claimed off waivers; 1 cleared waivers. 2006 was Cobbs, Woods, Andrews. 2 made the roster, 1 was traded for what turned out to be nothing.

It's striking that (tossing out IR cases) half of these binkies actually made the Pats roster as long-shot rookies, and 2 of the remaining 3 were on another team's 53. In other words, PatsFans common wisdom is actually pretty darned good at picking winners among the long-shot crew.

 

[Bostonian1962]

It isn't that ALL our UFDAs would be taken, it is that the one or two that would really help the team will be taken. Losing Garrett Mills really pissed me off. I didn't like losing Eckel either, but mostly it was because the Dolphins took him. Hasn't Mangini raided our waiver wire?

There are some teams who are not that deep from 40 to 53. They are the ones who would benefit from taking players from deep teams like the Pats, Steelers, etc.

But really, who can remember all of our UDFAs who ended up on other teams? Hopefully, we will keep the ones who wouldn't make it through waivers (like we did with guys like Gay, Woods, etc) and cut the ones we don't care if we lose or not.

I'm sure that most of our cuts will survive unclaimed, but since you are asking there are a couple I doubt will clear waivers (Gutierrez and Guyton are my two top candidates for landing elsewhere if cut).

You have the Bostonian1962 guarantee that Gutierrez makes the team as Brady's backup. He will not be cut. Take that to the bank, and it's a free of charge guarantee.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Have any players cut by the Patriots ever turned into serviceable NFL players? for that matter when was the last time a rookie was cut by his original team and went on to have any impact on another roster?

There is one who is in the process of doing so. Justin Rodgers was picked up by the Cowboys who were loaded with good LBs. He has pushed all those in front of him off the roster, and now is the ranking LB sub as a sophomore. One that got away...

 

[mgteich]

I agree that there is no difference between a 6th or 7th round pick and an UDFA is making final roster evaluations.

BTW, I believe that your insinuation that fans have had great insight with regard UDFA or late pick LB's is misplaced. There have been fan favorites at LB (and other positions) almost every year. They are our binkies, those who we personally overrate. They make great stories. For us they are next year replacements for Bruschi and the 2010 replacment for Vrabel. I believe that there is a very long list of such players. A few like Banta-Cain and Woods have stayed and become solid special teamers and backups who get reps if there are injuries.

Also, last year was a very special draft class. Our coaching staff apparently had little interest in any Day Two players, even the ones we drafted. I agree that Rogers got away, but we weren't ready to use a roster spot on someone we KNEW couldn't contribute last year. We took a chance on a veteran who might. In the end, there are many who think we lost because we didn't ahve sufficient depth at linebacker; that is, we didn't have enough experienced linebackers when we needed them in the playoffs and SB.

The answer for me is not to depend on four rookies. The answer is to draft top linebackers (which we did) and bring in a veteran (which we did).

Mgteich, I think you're artificially skewing this very real topic by limiting it to UDFAs. E.g., Bo Ruud was actually drafted but I haven't heard a soul here who thinks he'll make the 53, while UDFA Guyton is a popular fan choice. 6th-rounder Justin Rogers was very lightly regarded as a draft prospect but was a fan favorite after his camp performance; UDFA Freddie Roach was a huge favorite pre-camp but nobody gave him a shot after seeing him on the field.

EDIT: just recalled Mincey vs. Woods, a clear-cut case where fans knew the UDFA was outperforming the draft pick at the same position.

IOW, by the final cutdown date the difference between a late pick and a UDFA is immaterial -- to the Pats, to the fans, and to other teams that have seen the same things we have (and doubtless much more). The more interesting universe IMO isn't all UDFAs, but all rookie fan binkies: UDFAs + late draft picks whom PatsFans readers have gotten all dreamy about. Are these irrational crushes that prove meaningless come cut-down time, or are we right to fret over the likes of Gary Guyton?

So let's look at recent camp crush-objects. 2007 IIRC it was Rogers, Richardson, Elgin and Gutierrez. 1 was injured; 1 made the roster; 1 was claimed off waivers; 1 cleared waivers. 2006 was Cobbs, Woods, Andrews. 2 made the roster, 1 was traded for what turned out to be nothing.

It's striking that (tossing out IR cases) half of these binkies actually made the Pats roster as long-shot rookies, and 2 of the remaining 3 were on another team's 53. In other words, PatsFans common wisdom is actually pretty darned good at picking winners among the long-shot crew.

 

[Mark Morse]

I agree that there is no difference between a 6th or 7th round pick and an UDFA is making final roster evaluations.

BTW, I believe that your insinuation that fans have had great insight with regard UDFA or late pick LB's is misplaced. There have been fan favorites at LB (and other positions) almost every year. They are our binkies, those who we personally overrate. They make great stories. For us they are next year replacements for Bruschi and the 2010 replacment for Vrabel. I believe that there is a very long list of such players. A few like Banta-Cain and Woods have stayed and become solid special teamers and backups who get reps if there are injuries.

Also, last year was a very special draft class. Our coaching staff apparently had little interest in any Day Two players, even the ones we drafted. I agree that Rogers got away, but we weren't ready to use a roster spot on someone we KNEW couldn't contribute last year. We took a chance on a veteran who might. In the end, there are many who think we lost because we didn't ahve sufficient depth at linebacker; that is, we didn't have enough experienced linebackers when we needed them in the playoffs and SB.

The answer for me is not to depend on four rookies. The answer is to draft top linebackers (which we did) and bring in a veteran (which we did).

I understamd your concern about not having enough experienced LB's. I think we may have lost because our LB Corps was getting long in the tooth. Four rookies and a third year backup is inexperienced. You do have Seau waiting in the wings. Is Redd or Guyton any different than Woods or Alexander when they were trying to make the team? I actually think Woods is going to be a pretty good LOLB (he struggled on the other side). I think there is a way we keep all 10 LBs (Hobson cut).

 

[patchick]

BTW, I believe that your insinuation that fans have had great insight with regard UDFA or late pick LB's is misplaced. There have been fan favorites at LB (and other positions) almost every year. They are our binkies, those who we personally overrate. They make great stories. For us they are next year replacements for Bruschi and the 2010 replacment for Vrabel. I believe that there is a very long list of such players. A few like Banta-Cain and Woods have stayed and become solid special teamers and backups who get reps if there are injuries.

No question, fans have cleaved onto rookie LBs in the past couple of years out of wishful thinking -- we really, really wanted youth at the position, so entering camp we hung our hopes unrealistically on a Freddie Roach or Oscar Lua. But by the time of final cut-downs, the common wisdom almost always came down to Earth.

As for overrating binkies based on camp performance, it seems that you've shifted your ground rules. You started the thread saying fans were unrealistic to think that these binkies wouldn't clear waivers. Now you're saying it's unrealistic to think they'll replace Vrabel! Well of course it is. But that's not the debate here (unless you think Eric Alexander is going to replace Vrabel?)

You don't have to project Guyton to the Pro Bowl, or even a future starting rotation, to think that he's the right choice to fill the Pats' 9th LB slot...or that another team might give him a chance to fill theirs. And that is what fans have been very good at judging.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There is one who is in the process of doing so. Justin Rodgers was picked up by the Cowboys who were loaded with good LBs. He has pushed all those in front of him off the roster, and now is the ranking LB sub as a sophomore. One that got away...

I keep coming back to one question about Rogers, though: why was his deal a three-year deal instead of a four-year deal? After all, a sixth-rounder can't count on getting a second contract, so why not take the maximum $ available? [And, to paraphrase a previous argument, I don't think BB et al. bring Howie Mandel in to have the rookies play Three-Year Deal or Four-Year Deal. ]

In any case, though, it'll be very interesting to see what they do with Rogers over the next two offseasons (because he becomes an RFA after 2009). I wouldn't be surprised to see Rogers back in New England in 2010.