Cutdown Day: PATS DISCUSSION thread

[Ring 6]

Andy, doesn't the guarantee only apply to vested vets?

I'm not sure, but again, the difference isn't really worth sacrificing the quality of the roster over, and risking losing guys you want on your team in order to be able to cut them later and not have to pay them.
How much would you really save?

 

[Deus Irae]

Agreed. I think this is a bit immature to not give BB the respect he deserves in making this decision. OBVIOUSLY BB has seen more of these QB's than we all have.......and HE knows that Mallett would be adequate in coming in if needed and leading the STARTERS down the field. In BB we trust

He knew those safeties would be adequate last year, too, and that Green would be an adequate replacement for Seymour, right?

 

[Ring 6]

Regardless of what happens in the next few days or weeks, congrats to those who called a 4 TE roster. Today's the official day, and you got it right.

Among many surprises, some of which (3 WRs) I'm sure no one predicted.

There should be a powerball for predicting BBs 53.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The salary guarantee is the most overrated concept on this site. You are going to guarantee 53 salaries no matter what.
The idea that you would have one player on the 53 week 1 to avoid guaranteeing another's is ridiculous because the result would be to guarantee the guy you plan to cut after week 1 so you don't have to guarantee the guy who will replace him. The net gain isn't worth the trouble.

Andy: here's the difference.

If you cut a rookie who was on the roster for week 1, yes, you have to pay the salary for the replacement player, but you don't have to pay the rookie you cut.

If you cut a vested veteran who was on the roster in week 1, yes, you have to pay the salary for the replacement player, but you may still be on the hook for the remainder of the cut player's salary for the season.

That was actually a question when the Vikings waived Moss in 2010: if nobody had claimed him, they'd still have been on the hook for the rest of his salary.

 

[stcjones]

I seem to recall that in discussing Cassel in 2008 preseason, some people felt that BB wanted to see how well Cassel played within his assigned game plan, and didn't deviate. Matt Gutierrez for example, took it upon himself to try some things to try and make something happen, while BB wanted to see if the player was willing to do what he was told, even if he would suffer in the eyes of others.

Now maybe I'm "misremembering" and way off base, but that is just something I remember being discussed.

Good post and a blast from the past here......I was one of the only ones who liked Gutierrez....not one of my better judgements!!!!

 

[Ring 6]

He knew those safeties would be adequate last year, too, and that Green would be an adequate replacement for Seymour, right?

I doubt that, but I bet he thought they would turn out better than what he dumped, which isnt tremendously far fetched.

And we know he recognized there was a downgrade from Seymour, but for other reasons, decided to accept it.

 

[patchick]

Regardless of what happens in the next few days or weeks, congrats to those who called a 4 TE roster. Today's the official day, and you got it right.

Since that is pretty much the ONLY thing I got right, I'll happily accept the congratulations!

Weird stuff for sure, but that's cutdown day in Patriots land. If any posters here had proposed this as the initial 53, they'd have been laughed off the board.

 

[Lamanai]

Eleven DL ?

 

[RayClay]

has the article by Rapaport been posted yet???...if not or in case, here it is..

Why did the Patriots cut backup QB Brian Hoyer? Well… - NFL.com



interesting take on Hoyer's cut...

Trading a backup is timing. If there's a need and the guy gets a showcase, somebody might roll the dice. Had Brady not been injured, it's quite possible Cassel would have stayed around, maybe got disenchanted and stale and been let go.

Also, Cassel had more upside tools wise, being on a level of other USC QBs, but with no sign whether he measured up. Hoyer has less than optimum size.

 

[patsinthesnow]

9 rookies, congrats guys!

I imagine one of Francis or Forston will be cut to bring Deion or Jabar back.

 

[The Gr8est]

Among many surprises, some of which (3 WRs) I'm sure no one predicted.

There should be a powerball for predicting BBs 53.

BB's Powerball payout should be much higher though since it is much easier to win regular Powerball, than to predict BB's roster.

 

[BBass]

OK, raise your hand if you had Rivera and White as the final 2 LBs! Holy smokes.

Anyway...a big congratulations to the THREE undrafted rookies who seem to have earned themselves jobs: Forston, Bolden and Francis.

Rivera played solid since Fletcher went down and we really and the others weren't MLB and Spikes spends a lot of time off injured historically.

 

[jah]

Looks like I got 48 of the 53 correct (Hoyer, Demps, Branch, Waters, Tarpinian were my wrong guesses). Not bad.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy: here's the difference.

If you cut a rookie who was on the roster for week 1, yes, you have to pay the salary for the replacement player, but you don't have to pay the rookie you cut.

If you cut a vested veteran who was on the roster in week 1, yes, you have to pay the salary for the replacement player, but you may still be on the hook for the remainder of the cut player's salary for the season.

That was actually a question when the Vikings waived Moss in 2010: if nobody had claimed him, they'd still have been on the hook for the rest of his salary.

And that is not a vaild reason to sacrifice your roster.
The only POTENTIAL gain is the weeks you don't have to pay the veteran if you cut him, less what you pay his replacement anyway.

Its basically insignificant unless you are short cap $$ to make in season moves, which we surely are not.

 

[BBass]

looks like Shiancoe made it. Salary guaranteed. Dislike.

I don't see Shiancoe on the team on opening day.

 

[Deus Irae]

I doubt that, but I bet he thought they would turn out better than what he dumped, which isnt tremendously far fetched.

And we know he recognized there was a downgrade from Seymour, but for other reasons, decided to accept it.

I have no problem with "he thought". We're all entitled to screw up now and again. I had a problem with that poster's wording of "HE knows...".

 

[Patsrock]

I don't see Shiancoe on the team on opening day.

I see him going to the IR

 

[Joker]

I got everything wrong...sure glad I didn't make any predictions...maybe that's why I don't...and I think it's a HUGE waste of time ,effort and psychological energy...think how many fans are devastated and submerged in the throes of deep, dark depression right now because they're pet favorites got cut....it's so unnecessary, a needless strain on the psyche of the fragile Chicke...er....uh...NFL fan....

 

[Ring 6]

I have no problem with "he thought". We're all entitled to screw up now and again. I had a problem with that poster's wording of "HE knows...".

If 'he thought' and 'he knows' were the same thing we'd have about 8 Lombardis on the shelf.
Luckily for us, though, its closer than most.

 

[Ring 6]

Rivera played solid since Fletcher went down and we really and the others weren't MLB and Spikes spends a lot of time off injured historically.

Ultimately he took Tarpanian's job, and frankly anyone who has ever played LB has to like Rivera's style.