As long as we're parsing words in this thread, we should distinguish between "handing guys jobs" and "handing guys roster spots". Of course the guys drafted 1-4 pretty much get a roster spot; it's a few months after they're drafted, and so you're still judging them more on potential than performance. I don't see how that negates the notion that Belichick makes everyone compete for a job.
But whether they actually see action goes more on performance. That's why the whole Taylor Price experiment was so frustrating, the classic case of keeping a guy on the roster on potential until you can no longer wait for it to bear fruit.
There's no hard and fast rule. Tom Brady's starting job isn't at risk, obviously. Speaking of which, I think Brady should be added to this discussion. The Patriots kept a fourth QB on projection; there was no way he was going to see any time in the 2000 season, but they kept him because they didn't want to risk losing him. So was that "handing" Brady a job? He wasn't going to contribute to 2000; he wasn't going to hold on kicks or be a gunner.
Then, in '01, he jumped up the depth chart on performance, leapfrogging Huard and by many accounts outplaying Bledsoe during the preseason. So was Bledsoe "handed" his starting job at the start of '01? I don't think so, and I'm as big a Bledsoe critic as you'll find. Belichick weighed it out, and went with the veteran presence over the second-year guy who had already come so far building up in the offseason and moving up to backup QB. A lot of this comes down to judgment calls.
On the flip side, Belichick chose "veteran" over "potential" last year with Ocho over Tate, and probably chose wrong. Not that Tate necessarily was going to develop as a 3rd WR, but given Ocho's production, I bet Belichick would have preferred to have that KR on the roster late in the season.
But whether they actually see action goes more on performance. That's why the whole Taylor Price experiment was so frustrating, the classic case of keeping a guy on the roster on potential until you can no longer wait for it to bear fruit.
There's no hard and fast rule. Tom Brady's starting job isn't at risk, obviously. Speaking of which, I think Brady should be added to this discussion. The Patriots kept a fourth QB on projection; there was no way he was going to see any time in the 2000 season, but they kept him because they didn't want to risk losing him. So was that "handing" Brady a job? He wasn't going to contribute to 2000; he wasn't going to hold on kicks or be a gunner.
Then, in '01, he jumped up the depth chart on performance, leapfrogging Huard and by many accounts outplaying Bledsoe during the preseason. So was Bledsoe "handed" his starting job at the start of '01? I don't think so, and I'm as big a Bledsoe critic as you'll find. Belichick weighed it out, and went with the veteran presence over the second-year guy who had already come so far building up in the offseason and moving up to backup QB. A lot of this comes down to judgment calls.
On the flip side, Belichick chose "veteran" over "potential" last year with Ocho over Tate, and probably chose wrong. Not that Tate necessarily was going to develop as a 3rd WR, but given Ocho's production, I bet Belichick would have preferred to have that KR on the roster late in the season.
Last edited: