PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

2017 Training Camp - Day 10 (8/7/17) [Joint Practice with the Jaguars]


Status
Not open for further replies.
I would be willing to do some trade but they would be fairly minor. I would hate to lose our advantage and depth too much when we are such a super bowl favorite.

I would not trade Lewis cause injuries happen so much to RBs. A few trade I'd do would be maybe Cyrus Jones for a pick (If you believe enough in Moore) Or I would trade Hogan if you believe enough in Carr or Lucien cause we can be okay without him even if they don't work out.
No way I'd trade Chris Hogan. I think it would be absolutely pointless. I think it would not only weaken the WR corps, but it would also bring in a much lower draft pick return than you may think.
 
I think BB went all out in terms of trying to make sure that we'd have plenty of versatility and depth this year, which certainly hadn't been the case recently.

Yep, I tend to mutter repetitively that having 2 quality receiving backs is an absolute must. It's such a fragile position, and this offense really depends on it. But 3 is pretty much uncharted territory -- I have no clue how this is going to play out.
 
While I'm on the subject...I hate myself for saying it, but I could picture Dion Lewis being traded. As electric as he can be, Burkhead + White + Lewis seems like a positional overload. Somebody would have to be inactive each game.

If you think of the team minus Bolden, and have Burkhead running STs as well as playing on offense, why is there a need for an inactive?
 
If you think of the team minus Bolden, and have Burkhead running STs as well as playing on offense, why is there a need for an inactive?

You don't think there could be a more strategic use for player 45 than having Burkhead, White, and Lewis (+ Gilleslee) all active? OK.
 
You don't think there could be a more strategic use for player 45 than having Burkhead, White, and Lewis (+ Gilleslee) all active? OK.


How is that different from having Blount, White, Lewis, & Bolden all active?
 
How is that different from having Blount, White, Lewis, & Bolden all active?

Because that was 1 power back, 2 receiving backs, and an ST specialist. (Bolden had all of 1 carry last season, even with Lewis out for so long.) So far in camp we've seen no signs that Burkhead will be taking over all or even most of Bolden's ST duties, and increasing signs that Burkhead will get a plurality of RB snaps. So based on last year's model he projects to be one of the 3 active RBs, and Lewis or White would have to become a core special teamer to be active.
 
No way I'd trade Chris Hogan. I think it would be absolutely pointless. I think it would not only weaken the WR corps, but it would also bring in a much lower draft pick return than you may think.

Trading Hogan....so we're in that point of the off season, aye?

I am not saying I would trade Hogan (at least not for a good asking price). I am saying it is a trade I'd be willing to consider. I don't think it would hurt team much. You still have Cooks, Edelman, Mitchell and Amendola with one of the young WRs who has looked good. You do lose a bit of depth. It depends on the return.
 
Because that was 1 power back, 2 receiving backs, and an ST specialist. (Bolden had all of 1 carry last season, even with Lewis out for so long.) So far in camp we've seen no signs that Burkhead will be taking over all or even most of Bolden's ST duties, and increasing signs that Burkhead will get a plurality of RB snaps. So based on last year's model he projects to be one of the 3 active RBs, and Lewis or White would have to become a core special teamer to be active.

Burkhead has played special teams in camp.


Gillislee = Blount (though likely with more catches)
White = White
Lewis = Lewis
Burkhead = Upgraded Bolden

Seems like simple math, if you remove Bolden from the equation. Whether BB will do that or not is a different question.
 
Won't help us this year but it would be nice if the NFL* could come up with a few roster spots for rookies drafted say 5th round and below and UDFAs.

This gives players most in need of development, a chance to do so, and with their original teams, and their salaries are relatively low.
I like your idea, but It shouldn't be about the money. A slightly better one would be to allow each team to protect 4 players on their PS, BUT, those 4 players would have to be paid the rookie minimum for that year. The rest of the PS would say as usual. And here's an important element. Those 4 salaries would NOT count to the salary cap unless the player comes off the PS and joins the 53 man roster.

The union should love it since it adds over 120 players that are getting full pay. The league should love it since it help create larger player pool who are getting developed better by staying in the same system longer.

The fans should love it since it rewards teams who can draft, select UDFA. and develop them better.

In fact the only ones who would have a complaint would be the owners who would have to create another $1.6MM per team (chump change) in revenue to cover the costs.
 
Hogan is going to positively murder this year. He was getting behind defenses to the tune of 18yds per rec last season -- and that was without Cooks (and, to an extent, Gronk) for opposing D's to worry about. Plus, he's not depth: he's a starter in the 3 wr sets.
 
Baring injuries, for any/most of udfa's and bubble players to make the squad, they're going to have to contribute on ST too. Otherwise, what's the real loss if they get picked up? It's just not enough plays for a bubble guy to make himself into a "plus" player unless it's across multiple phases.
 
Let's have them anyway . some interesting bits from Blogservations:
Blogservations Day 10: Jags join Pats camp fun


--The second group of linemen included Waddle, Karras, Ferentz, Croston and McDermott. McDermott has seen his reps go up a notch over the late couple practices . that can't be said for Tony Garcia.

-- Continuing to be one of the more physical Patriots defenders of the summer, Elandon Roberts put a pop on Jags running back Corey Grant that sent the third-year player to the ground in team action.

-- Deatrich Wise Jr. worked some rushes from between the guard and tackle. On one such rep Wise was engaged with the guard when the tackle stepped down to help out and knocked the rookie defensive end to the turf with alarming ease. Clearly Wise was caught off guard by the two-man block and will need to become more aware of such schemes if he's going to continue to get reps as an interior rusher.

-- Derek Rivers continues to be somewhat quiet in his reps, many still coming with him playing on two feet in space rather than as a DE with his hand in the dirt.

ST

-- When the Patriots were on kickoff return Dion Lewis was the first guy back deep with Rex Burkhead as the off returner. The next group had Cyrus Jones with James White.

-- The teams both worked on the kickoff/kickoff return game in the workout. Interesting that Jaguars kick returners would hold a ball in their hands prior to Stephen Gostkowski's kickoff, and then toss it behind them before the live ball actually arrived. Could be they wanted to ensure a return even if the kick was too deep/unreturnable, but hard to tell for sure.

--Late in team action NE ran its field goal unit on for a clock-sensitive field goal attempt by Gostkowski. He missed the first long attempt from 55-plus wide left, but JAX was called for a penalty. Gostkowski then missed left again from 5 yards closer.
___

injury alert

-- Vincent Valentine was down on one knee and gesturing to his back while being looked at by the medical staff. It did not appear that he took any more reps for the remainder of the workout and was seen walking down the sideline with a member of the training staff.

-- Cornerback Eric Rowe took early reps as the third corner, but then was sidelined later to an apparent ailment, seemingly a lower-body issue.
 
I like your idea, but It shouldn't be about the money. A slightly better one would be to allow each team to protect 4 players on their PS, BUT, those 4 players would have to be paid the rookie minimum for that year. The rest of the PS would say as usual. And here's an important element. Those 4 salaries would NOT count to the salary cap unless the player comes off the PS and joins the 53 man roster.

The union should love it since it adds over 120 players that are getting full pay. The league should love it since it help create larger player pool who are getting developed better by staying in the same system longer.

The fans should love it since it rewards teams who can draft, select UDFA. and develop them better.

In fact the only ones who would have a complaint would be the owners who would have to create another $1.6MM per team (chump change) in revenue to cover the costs.


I actually proposed very similar idea earlier in the thread:

I wish there was some way clubs could protect their investment and coaching at least for a few players over 53. If not bigger roster then something like having a chance to place f.e. 4 players on PS without waiving them (just at Sep cut time) . automatically paying them minimum roster money of course..

Once on PS others can lure them to their teams . but at least you'd have some control that way and at the same time players wouldn't lose money.

I agree that players, NFLPA and most clubs should welcome this. The only “losers“ here would be the bad teams with bad management/scouting/coaching. That might be the reason why *NFL would be against it . another “parity“ gift to bad management even if it is a fake parity . making the league worse not better.

BTW - I wouldn't give teams power to protect players on PS. Once they are there its a free market because team has leverage to keep them there and players should have freedom to chase better opportunity. In the current system it is not only that teams cannot protect assets they invested a lot in and worked hard for . also players can't protect their interests put on waivers (f.e. staying on a good coached team getting roster salary) ..
 
Burkhead has played special teams in camp.


Gillislee = Blount (though likely with more catches)
White = White
Lewis = Lewis
Burkhead = Upgraded Bolden

Seems like simple math, if you remove Bolden from the equation. Whether BB will do that or not is a different question.

I think the problem is starting with a faulty premise, that a 4-man RB corps really existed last year.

First off, when Lewis was out last year they typically just dressed 2 RBs + Bolden. They did not activate D.J. Foster to get to 3+B. Second, even with just those 2 RBs active, Bolden was not an RB. Even Matthew Slater played 4X as many offensive snaps as Bolden last year, and nobody here has any problem listing Slater under the ST column.

So if you want "simple math," the Patriots played 2 or 3 different players per game at RB last year, period. I'm pretty sure that's always been true, and it only appears otherwise because one of their top recent special teamers happened to be listed on the roster under RB.
 
I agree that players, NFLPA and most clubs should welcome this.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that the NFLPA would like it, since you're taking away players' opportunity to make an active roster and advance their careers. It's not just about salary, it's about accruing seasons, getting exposure, earning money from a bonus pool, and simply advancing their careers.

Realistically, Devin Lucien could be a starter with the Jets. (Yeah, I know, but still.) I don't think he'd consider a rule that forces him to stay on the Pats' practice squad instead a positive.
 
Unfortunately I'm not sure that the NFLPA would like it, since you're taking away players' opportunity to make an active roster and advance their careers. It's not just about salary, it's about accruing seasons, getting exposure, earning money from a bonus pool, and simply advancing their careers.

Realistically, Devin Lucien could be a starter with the Jets. (Yeah, I know, but still.) I don't think he'd consider a rule that forces him to stay on the Pats' practice squad instead a positive.


Maybe you didn't read my proposal careful enough. The protection is only for Sept cut waiver wire (and only for limited # of “protected“ rookies). /quote: for original teams to have a chance to place f.e. 4 players on PS without waiving them (just at Sep cut time) /

After they are placed on original teams PS - so before week 1 - they have all the freedom to go to other teams 53 if they so wish. But the “original“ team has also the leverage not only to pay them more money (min roster pay would be automatic anyway for this “protected“ players) but also to take them on their own 53 if they are faced by other's teams offers.

So my rule proposal would not force anyone to stay on original team PS - not even for a week. It would just provide leverage and “freedom“ in deciding about future both to original club and the player.

Well, I don't know . but if Id be a player Id certainly vote for this. It gives me much bigger freedom of choice where I continue and for what money. And if Id be an owner with trust in my FO and coaches . Id appreciate this rule as well.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you didn't read my proposal careful enough. The protection is only for Sept cut waiver wire (and only for limited # of “protected“ rookies). /quote: for original teams to have a chance to place f.e. 4 players on PS without waiving them (just at Sep cut time) /

OK, I'm trying to figure out the exact implications. Here's what I see, but I'm doubtless missing aspects of it...

For the players, the downside is missing out on the flurry of waiver signings, potentially setting them back in the hunt for an active roster job. It also keeps those who would otherwise go unclaimed from choosing a different team's PS where they see greater opportunity. In return, on the plus side they get the option to say no to another team's offer of a roster slot and stay on their previous team's PS instead, and a non-guaranteed offer of good pay if they last the season on the PS.

For the cutting team, it means not exposing your cuts to the waiver wire. No obvious downside.

For the 31 potential signing teams, it means a major dilution of the cutdown-day waiver wire. In particular, the waiver priority system that's designed to help the weakest teams build up their rosters would be bypassed.

IMO the net effect seems to me to be in favor of teams with deep rosters over weaker teams, with a neutral-to-negative effect for the players.

I wonder what would happen if teams could rescind a waiver when a player is claimed, as in baseball?
 
OK, I'm trying to figure out the exact implications. Here's what I see, but I'm doubtless missing aspects of it...

For the players, the downside is missing out on the flurry of waiver signings, potentially setting them back in the hunt for an active roster job. It also keeps those who would otherwise go unclaimed from choosing a different team's PS where they see greater opportunity. In return, on the plus side they get the option to say no to another team's offer of a roster slot and stay on their previous team's PS instead, and a non-guaranteed offer of good pay if they last the season on the PS.

For the cutting team, it means not exposing your cuts to the waiver wire. No obvious downside.

For the 31 potential signing teams, it means a major dilution of the cutdown-day waiver wire. In particular, the waiver priority system that's designed to help the weakest teams build up their rosters would be bypassed.

IMO the net effect seems to me to be in favor of teams with deep rosters over weaker teams, with a neutral-to-negative effect for the players.

I wonder what would happen if teams could rescind a waiver when a player is claimed, as in baseball?


good points

for me - as/if a player - the downside on missing “the flurry of waiver signings“ would be minor. missing on a chance to be rookie SFA has its pluses and minuses

being paid as if on 53 immediately w original team, getting their trust as “protected“ player (which probably increases value as well), being free to receive and accept offers from other teams the moment PS is formed, being able to freely choose my next destination or stay w original team despite offers - all that would be major +

for all 32 teams it means the same - they can keep some leverage over their investment in draft capital, coaching, culture etc. it should benefit all teams that believe in their culture, management, scouting & coaching staff. it should benefit the football game as a whole to have more teams betting on their hard work and their own excellence. that's what competition should be all about.

like Ken pointed out, it should benefit also the NFLPA having 100+ more players on roster salary
 
Last edited:
I think the problem is starting with a faulty premise, that a 4-man RB corps really existed last year.

First off, when Lewis was out last year they typically just dressed 2 RBs + Bolden. They did not activate D.J. Foster to get to 3+B. Second, even with just those 2 RBs active, Bolden was not an RB. Even Matthew Slater played 4X as many offensive snaps as Bolden last year, and nobody here has any problem listing Slater under the ST column.

So if you want "simple math," the Patriots played 2 or 3 different players per game at RB last year, period. I'm pretty sure that's always been true, and it only appears otherwise because one of their top recent special teamers happened to be listed on the roster under RB.

When Lewis was healthy, they ran a 4 man RB corps, counting Bolden. The problem seems to be your hangup about Bolden/Burkhead. Again, whether Bolden makes the team is something we'll find out in the future, but Burkhead would take the Bolden spot and get more RB snaps.

4=4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/19: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Back
Top