- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 32,634
- Reaction score
- 23,169
Collie was brought in 13 days ago when Amendola has played in live game action over the past 11 days, and was obviously expected to see the field for the first time in weeks prior to Collie even arriving. And for what it's worth, there was someone who stated that Collie was brought in due to Amendola's injury--actually you yourself are insinuating it here too, so that makes at least a couple/few posters.
The decision with signing Austin Collie had absolutely nothing to do with the health of Danny Amendola. Just the fact alone that some are insinuating the prospect of replacing an injury prone player with a significantly "more" injured player is practically silly, isn't it?
Boyce hasn't even been active since before Collie arrived here, and had only seen 5 targets in 4 games prior to finally being benched. If you don't think that those 2 are relative to each other, then I can respect that, but I feel quite differently.
Boyce's failures certainly weren't the "only" reason why Collie was brought in, we also needed additional depth and a guy who could recognize and pick up our offensive in a relatively short period of time due to having similarities where he had previously played. It was a no-brainer in my opinion, a very low risk/high reward situation, but the lack of Boyce being able to contribute was likely one aspect for the signing for sure. We also had Dobson and Thompkins as limited practice participants that week.
I think the reasoning for feeling that Boyce wasn't working out has been gone over many times, so there's no use beating a dead horse.
I couldn't imagine why you'd compare a cheap rookie contract in Boyce, with a very expensive 30 million dollar pact with Amendola? They actually couldn't be any different. We've moved on from players who were 4th round draft picks a million times over with almost no cap effect or major drawback aside from losing out on a mid round pick. When have you seen them move on from someone who would cost more to cut than to keep in terms of a major 30 million dollar contract? The 2 situations couldn't possibly be more different and they don't have any similarities whatsoever.
Amendola had experience in McDaniels' offense prior to even coming here and had 3/4 productive NFL seasons. Josh Boyce hasn't even been able to get the offensive system down, and hasn't even begun to earn Brady's trust yet. There are a ton of instances where a mid round pick at the position of WR is used as a first season red shirt, particularly in a complicated scheme such as this one.
If Boyce doesn't work out, no one will bat an eye and it will cost almost nothing at all. If Amendola doesn't work out it will be viewed as a monumental failure and will cost more to cut than keep him here. Why would you cut a player with obvious potential and experience in the system prior to waiting until you can save money by doing so? We aren't talking about a cheap young rookie here. We're talking about one of the more highly sought after free agent slot receivers in last year's free agency market.
The chances of having 3 rookie WR's contribute with a lot of production were slim and none to begin with, so we're actually doing very well with Thompkins and Dobson for 2013. Better than any previous season in terms of rookie WR production since Deion Branch, and even he only had 43 catches and 3-4 TD's throughout the whole year. Both Thompkins and Dobson should surpass that in 2013.
Boyce will be competing for reps next year. In the meantime, he'll be red shirted like we've seen other rookie WR's in the past. If he can pay attention in film study, run the proper routes in practice, and pick up the offensive scheme that would go a long way for him chances in 2014.
It certainly is when you take into account the salary cap ramifications, and the fact that it would cost much more to cut him that to keep him until at least 2015. That's the basic standard for "bigger/major" contracts. You have to get through the first couple of years until you see a cap savings. In the meantime the team basically assumes the risk in the first 2 (or so) years. It's normally the same for any kind of bigger, multi year deal. That's why you don't see many bigger named guys who are costing a lot get cut in the first year or two, unless there are enormous communications or character concern problems, etc.
Not only that, obviously Belichick felt comfortable in bringing him in to replace Welker, or he wouldn't have been courting him since the initial first hour of the "legal tampering" period that began on the Saturday morning prior to free agency.
Some here seem to be forgetting that Amendola has 3/4 productive seasons in the NFL. It's been 6 freaking games so far into a five year contract. Let's give the guy a chance for crying out loud. If we're at this point next season through the halfway or so point, then cutting Amendola can be a reasonable topic, but we have a long way to go before that.
In the meantime, the fact that Amendola is 27 yrs old has nothing at all to do with anything in my opinion. He is the usual and normal age for someone who's been in the league for 4 yrs. Let's not go grasping at straws and act like 27 is "old" for a player of his position.
