Will Belichick Cut His First 4th Round Rookie Draftee?

[mgteich]

Belichick is always developing young linemen. This year is no exception. And yes, there are usually a player or two over 30.

It does not follow that we should keep all 5 young prospects (rookies plus Kline and Devey). Any of them could be future starters. Some would even think that of Barker and Cave, last year's prospects at center. I think that Belichick disagrees or he wouldn't have drafted Stork.

Personally, I believe that since Belichick believed enough in Stork and Fleming to draft them in the 4th round, they will make team as every early draftee has for a dozen years. Andy disagrees with Belichick's approach; I don't. In any case, I don't see this year as the year of the great change.

You present somewhat of a smokescreen. All of us want to keep at least 3 youngsters. We have lots to choose from: Stork, Fleming, Devey, Kline, Hilapio, Cave and Barker. I think a prospect at each position is fine: Stork, Fleming and Devey (or Kline or Hilapio).

You seem to want Hilapio over Kline or Devey. Most of us disagree. It would seem that we would try to have either Hilapio and/or Devey on the Practice Squad if they don't make the team.

You seem to think that Hilapio won't pass waivers. Perhaps you're right. However, I wouldn't cut a better OL prospect to keep Hilapio.

BOTTOM LINE
I think that you would have Cannon as a starter and have no veterans as backups, keeping four young backups. I disagree with that approach. In the end, we are really discussing ONE difference between us. I would keep Wendell instead of Hilapio.

For all those who want to cut Stork, Fleming and Halapio I think it is important to keep in mind that Mankins is 32, Connolly is in the final year of his contract, and Cannon is in the final year of his contract. So sure you free up some roster spots cutting these players but then what happens next year?

Despite what some like to believe team building is not a year to year process, there is long term planning involved, and just because a player is not great day 1, month 1, year 1, or even year 2 does not mean that his ticket is stamped and his career is determined.

 

[Ring 6]

Belichick is always developing young linemen. This year is no exception. And yes, there are usually a player or two over 30.

It does not follow that we should keep all 5 young prospects (rookies plus Kline and Devey). Any of them could be future starters. Some would even think that of Barker and Cave, last year's prospects at center. I think that Belichick disagrees or he wouldn't have drafted Stork.

Personally, I believe that since Belichick believed enough in Stork and Fleming to draft them in the 4th round, they will make team as every early draftee has for a dozen years. Andy disagrees with Belichick's approach; I don't. In any case, I don't see this year as the year of the great change.

You present somewhat of a smokescreen. All of us want to keep at least 3 youngsters. We have lots to choose from: Stork, Fleming, Devey, Kline, Hilapio, Cave and Barker. I think a prospect at each position is fine: Stork, Fleming and Devey (or Kline or Hilapio).

You seem to want Hilapio over Kline or Devey. Most of us disagree. It would seem that we would try to have either Hilapio and/or Devey on the Practice Squad if they don't make the team.

You seem to think that Hilapio won't pass waivers. Perhaps you're right. However, I wouldn't cut a better OL prospect to keep Hilapio.

BOTTOM LINE
I think that you would have Cannon as a starter and have no veterans as backups, keeping four young backups. I disagree with that approach. In the end, we are really discussing ONE difference between us. I would keep Wendell instead of Hilapio.

Disagreeing is fine, but the results of keeping draft picks who arent ready to contribute for development have been poor at best. You have to admit that.

Also, who do you have starting at RG?

 

[fnordcircle]

Let's put them all on PUP.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, how do you identify these players who earned roster spots they "didn't deserve"?

Well, wouldn't they be guys who did little in camp, and had very small roles in the season?
We are talking about the idea of keeping a guy solely for the future in fear of losing him to waiver claims. There seem to be a reasonable amount of examples of this, and I don't see any that worked out.
Crable, Price, Tate, McKenzie(IR), Ornberger come to mind off the top of my head.

 

[mmasterkillah]

Like someone else said: I thought this was about Boyce. Odd thread in my mind.

Stork returned to practice today after suffering an injury. It would seem to be a total waste of an asset to just toss him aside. If we have a feeling he can't play or can never stay healthy, I get it... but we don't have Dermontti Dawson waiting around at C.

White has performed just fine in practice and has gotten reps with the top 3 units consistently. He didn't put up big numbers through two PRESEASON games, but that isn't always the point of exhibitions. I'd be totally f'ing mind-blown if Bill decided on him based on that.

I haven't seen as much of Fleming, or had the opportunity to read up quite as much, but he seemed to be a developmental guy when we drafted him from a technical/pass blocking standpoint at the least. He did pretty well, from what I saw, on Friday.

 

[VrabelJr]

Well, wouldn't they be guys who did little in camp, and had very small roles in the season?
We are talking about the idea of keeping a guy solely for the future in fear of losing him to waiver claims. There seem to be a reasonable amount of examples of this, and I don't see any that worked out.
Crable, Price, Tate, McKenzie(IR), Ornberger come to mind off the top of my head.

Allow me to be Deus Irae for a second. How do you know the team was only keeping them because they were afraid of losing them to waiver claims?

 

[VrabelJr]

Stork is also back at practice today.

 

[PP2]

Really doubt Stork will be cut or IR'ed. He was drafted with the knowledge that he had a history of injuries from FSU, so I think he'll be given some leeway for missing practices and games up to a certain extent.

 

[BelichickFan]

Really doubt Stork will be cut or IR'ed.

As he was back today I retract my IR prediction. But, no, we won't cut any of them. Nor Helapio who Bill went out of his way to express surprise he was available when he was.

 

[Brady6]

Belichick is always developing young linemen. This year is no exception. And yes, there are usually a player or two over 30.

It does not follow that we should keep all 5 young prospects (rookies plus Kline and Devey). Any of them could be future starters. Some would even think that of Barker and Cave, last year's prospects at center. I think that Belichick disagrees or he wouldn't have drafted Stork.

Personally, I believe that since Belichick believed enough in Stork and Fleming to draft them in the 4th round, they will make team as every early draftee has for a dozen years. Andy disagrees with Belichick's approach; I don't. In any case, I don't see this year as the year of the great change.

You present somewhat of a smokescreen. All of us want to keep at least 3 youngsters. We have lots to choose from: Stork, Fleming, Devey, Kline, Hilapio, Cave and Barker. I think a prospect at each position is fine: Stork, Fleming and Devey (or Kline or Hilapio).

You seem to want Hilapio over Kline or Devey. Most of us disagree. It would seem that we would try to have either Hilapio and/or Devey on the Practice Squad if they don't make the team.

You seem to think that Hilapio won't pass waivers. Perhaps you're right. However, I wouldn't cut a better OL prospect to keep Hilapio.

BOTTOM LINE
I think that you would have Cannon as a starter and have no veterans as backups, keeping four young backups. I disagree with that approach. In the end, we are really discussing ONE difference between us. I would keep Wendell instead of Hilapio.

You think that Devey and Kline are better prospects than Stork, Fleming, and Halapio? I can tell you Stork, Fleming, and Halapio are all further along at this juncture in their career than Kline or Devey were last year when they were 3 months into their NFL careers. You confuse a player having 18 months of experience and coaching with the player being a better prospect. Where were Kline and Devey last year at this time.

This is the roster I am keeping personally:

LT- Solder
LG- Mankins, Kline
OC- Connolly, Stork
RG- Cannon, Halapio
RT- Vollmer, Fleming

I do not think Wendell would even get signed if he was cut so he could be on the shadow roster. The NFL is a young mans game, you consistently advocate for veterans which is fine to each their own but of the veterans in recent years how many have panned out? Andre Carter, maybe Tommy Kelly. Now how many have failed.

 

[Ring 6]

Allow me to be Deus Irae for a second. How do you know the team was only keeping them because they were afraid of losing them to waiver claims?

Because they didn't show enough in camp to earn a spot and didn't have much if any role to start the season or usually even later.

 

[Ring 6]

You think that Devey and Kline are better prospects than Stork, Fleming, and Halapio? I can tell you Stork, Fleming, and Halapio are all further along at this juncture in their career than Kline or Devey were last year when they were 3 months into their NFL careers. You confuse a player having 18 months of experience and coaching with the player being a better prospect. Where were Kline and Devey last year at this time.

This is the roster I am keeping personally:

LT- Solder
LG- Mankins, Kline
OC- Connolly, Stork
RG- Cannon, Halapio
RT- Vollmer, Fleming

I do not think Wendell would even get signed if he was cut so he could be on the shadow roster. The NFL is a young mans game, you consistently advocate for veterans which is fine to each their own but of the veterans in recent years how many have panned out? Andre Carter, maybe Tommy Kelly. Now how many have failed.

Many veterans have "panned out" in the roles they had. We aren't talking about stars we are talking about the end of the roster.

 

[Brady6]

Disagreeing is fine, but the results of keeping draft picks who arent ready to contribute for development have been poor at best. You have to admit that.

Also, who do you have starting at RG?

Stork has plenty of time to prove he can play. Ras-I Dowling missed most of his camp as a rookie and got the start on opening day. Alfonzo Dennard also missed most of his rookie camp and was starting by week 5.

Fleming has been solid at RT in the preseason, and Halapio was actually playing first team reps in OTAs so it is not like these players are ****ting the bed.

 

[Brady6]

Many veterans have "panned out" in the roles they had. We aren't talking about stars we are talking about the end of the roster.

Names?

 

[Brady6]

Disagreeing is fine, but the results of keeping draft picks who arent ready to contribute for development have been poor at best. You have to admit that.

Also, who do you have starting at RG?

So basically you want cut all of the draft picks except for Easley who himself has done nothing to earn a roster spot yet, Garopollo who is a 3rd string QB unlikely to contribute anything to the team for years, and White.

 

[ATippett56]

Hopefully Bryan Stork can outperform Ryan Wendell in the next two preseason games.

 

[ATippett56]

Disagreeing is fine, but the results of keeping draft picks who arent ready to contribute for development have been poor at best. You have to admit that.

Also, who do you have starting at RG?

Based upon preseason, the following offensive lineman have played at right guard:

Devey
Kline
Halapio

 

[patchick]

Well, wouldn't they be guys who did little in camp, and had very small roles in the season? We are talking about the idea of keeping a guy solely for the future in fear of losing him to waiver claims. There seem to be a reasonable amount of examples of this, and I don't see any that worked out.

We know a player didn't "earn" his roster spot because of how the season plays out after he makes the roster? That seems like a very different claim: that players who don't make an impression by the end of their rookie years don't amount to much. (Even so, what about Shane Vereen with his 15 total yards rushing as a rookie? )

I don't think year-end results tell us why the players were kept on the roster to begin with. For instance, if Jamie Collins had gone on IR 10 games into his rookie season before he started getting significant snaps, he would have fit your criteria. I don't think that means he didn't "earn" or "deserve" his place on the roster and was only kept out of fear of the waiver wire. It just means he was a developmental prospect.

 

[ATippett56]

Well, wouldn't they be guys who did little in camp, and had very small roles in the season?
We are talking about the idea of keeping a guy solely for the future in fear of losing him to waiver claims. There seem to be a reasonable amount of examples of this, and I don't see any that worked out.

David Givens

 

[mgteich]

Disagreeing is fine, but the results of keeping draft picks who arent ready to contribute for development have been poor at best. You have to admit that.

Also, who do you have starting at RG?

I have many times said that I don't know who will start at RG. Belichick has 3 weeks to decide. Personally, I would start Wendell at C and Connolly at RG. I still think that this is the best combination.

I understand that we gain with Connolly at center. However, I think that we lose more with Kline, Cannon or Devey at RG.

However, I HOPE that one the three is ready to take over at RG. I just don't see it.