Cannon and Michel back at practice.

[One-If-By-Sea]

I’m sure the medical staff did their homework but, as has been the case with our medical staff, they seemed to be doing Algebra when the assignment was Calculus.

Easley played 16 games in 2016 and then blew out his ACL (again) in 2017. He is trying to play again this year. The Pats seem very patient with injuries, always wondered if there was something more with Easley. Since he was healthy for 2016 and is still trying in 2018, I wonder if his knees were the whole story behind why the Pats cut him.

 

[varjao]

Easley played 16 games in 2016 and then blew out his ACL (again) in 2017. He is trying to play again this year. The Pats seem very patient with injuries, always wondered if there was something more with Easley. Since he was healthy for 2016 and is still trying in 2018, I wonder if his knees were the whole story behind why the Pats cut him.

It was reported at the time that there was other stuff.

He didn't want to follow the Patriots program regarding his knees, instead he wanted to take care of his knees by himself, also he came to OTA's or other sort of presentation full of dog bites, apparently he likes his pitbulls in a way that the coaching staff may have smelled trouble.

I just googled and found out he had to pay USD 150.000 to a guy who was attacked by one of his dogs.

The guy was/is a headcase. There's no place for a guy like this in this program.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Easley played 16 games in 2016 and then blew out his ACL (again) in 2017. He is trying to play again this year. The Pats seem very patient with injuries, always wondered if there was something more with Easley. Since he was healthy for 2016 and is still trying in 2018, I wonder if his knees were the whole story behind why the Pats cut him.

Easely wasn't with the rehab program and his lack of availability and on the field contributions did not earn him any special considerations.

In other words, he wasn't worth the headache

 

[Ring 6]

I think it’s appropriate here to point out.
Easley was a draft bust.
But Easley was also made as a risky pick, high risk, high reward. Had he developed as expected a dt that quick off the ball who can bring up the middle pressure would have been a great and commodity.
While the risk failed its interesting to note the choice of taking a risk seems well placed.
easkwts rookie contract would be up, so his draft rating is complete.
Failing on the risk, the team in those 4 years still won 2 sbs went to a 3rd and lost an afccg game by 2 points.
So the pick was bad, but the concept of risking it seems sound.

 

[Angelpats]

I’m sure the medical staff did their homework but, as has been the case with our medical staff, they seemed to be doing Algebra when the assignment was Calculus.

Even with medical or off field risks we have to make gambles in the draft because we always pick last in every round. Besides getting rarely lucky that a later round pick becomes a starter, we have to accept risks in order to get top tier talent, like Gronkowski, Hernandez and such.

 

[Sicilian]

I think it’s appropriate here to point out.
Easley was a draft bust.
But Easley was also made as a risky pick, high risk, high reward. Had he developed as expected a dt that quick off the ball who can bring up the middle pressure would have been a great and commodity.
While the risk failed its interesting to note the choice of taking a risk seems well placed.
easkwts rookie contract would be up, so his draft rating is complete.
Failing on the risk, the team in those 4 years still won 2 sbs went to a 3rd and lost an afccg game by 2 points.
So the pick was bad, but the concept of risking it seems sound.

A good point. There's a big difference between taking a risk because you have the buffer to fail on that risk, and taking a risk because you're desperate for talent. Clearly Easley was a case of the former.

 

[Ring 6]

A good point. There's a big difference between taking a risk because you have the buffer to fail on that risk, and taking a risk because you're desperate for talent. Clearly Easley was a case of the former.

Thanks you said it better than I did.

 

[captain stone]

captain, I think Kirby Smart was still at 'bama when Mitchell was drafted by the Pats. Not sure how close BB and Mark Richt are. MM also fell in the draft due to his knee issues at Georgia. Michel might also have gone higher but finished his season on a very strong note so not sure the seriousness of knee issues were on the same level. Michel's current knee issue was said to be minor. But we heard that one before so we won't know until he gets out there and plays.

You're right: Mark Richt was the HC throughout MM's tenure and the first 2 years of Michel's; Kirby Smart was HC for Michel's last 2 years there.

 

[Deus Irae]

Easley played 16 games in 2016 and then blew out his ACL (again) in 2017. He is trying to play again this year. The Pats seem very patient with injuries, always wondered if there was something more with Easley. Since he was healthy for 2016 and is still trying in 2018, I wonder if his knees were the whole story behind why the Pats cut him.

One healthy season out of four is not a reason to give the man a cookie. He was a bad pick, and some of us said that at the time.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

One healthy season out of four is not a reason to give the man a cookie. He was a bad pick, and some of us said that at the time.

Deus, Easley was here for 2 years. BB almost always gives a high draft pick more than 2 years of rope before moving on. The Rams signed Easley in 2016, after we cut him, and Easley played all 16 games in 2016. At the beginning of 2017 the Rams signed Easley to his 5th year tender (you can tender 1st rounders for a 5th year at a relatively high cost if they are playing well). When BB moved on from Easley 1) his knees were fine and 2) he was playing well enough to receive a 5th year tender from the Rams. You can argue that the Rams did not know what they were doing, but no-one signs a "bad pick" to a 5th year tender. You can rightly argue that Easley was an injury risk (and correspondingly maybe argue a bad pick). but when healthy Easley is good. There was a reason, other than health and performance, why Easley was cut.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus, Easley was here for 2 years. BB almost always gives a high draft pick more than 2 years of rope before moving on. The Rams signed Easley in 2016, after we cut him, and Easley played all 16 games in 2016. At the beginning of 2017 the Rams signed Easley to his 5th year tender (you can tender 1st rounders for a 5th year at a relatively high cost if they are playing well). When BB moved on from Easley 1) his knees were fine and 2) he was playing well enough to receive a 5th year tender from the Rams. You can argue that the Rams did not know what they were doing, but no-one signs a "bad pick" to a 5th year tender. You can rightly argue that Easley was an injury risk (and correspondingly maybe argue a bad pick). but when healthy Easley is good. There was a reason, other than health and performance, why Easley was cut.

I know the Easley history. And, for the record, because the Patriots cut Easley, there was no tender to sign. The Rams got Easley for $600k, with no signing bonus or guaranteed money.

 

[Oswlek]

I’m sure the medical staff did their homework but, as has been the case with our medical staff, they seemed to be doing Algebra when the assignment was Calculus.

The problem for Easley was less knees and more willingness. So long as Michel is a better soldier, the odds are good he'll work out.

 

[Kontradiction]

The problem for Easley was less knees and more willingness. So long as Michel is a better soldier, the odds are good he'll work out.

I'm a Gator fan. Easley had a lot of preexisting knee issues coming into the league. That was coupled with an attitude problem. Mitchell is another example of a guy coming into the league with preexisting knee issues.

 

[Jackson 2]

Dom Easley and Malcolm Mitchell are waving at you right now.

*And this is coming from someone that loves Michel's game.

Didn't realize Mitchell was a first round pick. And, as for me, his choice was worth it just based upon his contributions in the Atlanta SB.

 

[Oswlek]

I'm a Gator fan. Easley had a lot of preexisting knee issues coming into the league. That was coupled with an attitude problem. Mitchell is another example of a guy coming into the league with preexisting knee issues.

Sure, but his knees weren't what gave him the boot. I read further along after my prior post and it seemed like you agreed with this. Am I misinterpreting your comments?

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

I know the Easley history. And, for the record, because the Patriots cut Easley, there was no tender to sign. The Rams got Easley for $600k, with no signing bonus or guaranteed money.

For the record, you are right. For the record the 5th year tender cost the Rams $1.8M.

Defensive tackle Dominique Easley signs one-year tender to remain with Rams.

To quote from the article "Defensive tackle Dominique Easley, who was a restricted free agent, on Thursday signed a one-year, original-round tender (I added the Bold) to remain with the Rams for the 2017 season, a person with knowledge of the situation said". Even though Easley was originally a cheap option for the Rams, no-one signs a player to a $1.8M tender if he can not play. Was Easley a great pick? Maybe not. Do teams that have seen a player for over a year pay $1.8M because the original contract was low? Doubtful.

I repeat my assertion, Easley was cut for "non-football" reasons. I doubt anyone, on this board or other boards, knew about those "non-football" reasons at draft time. Easley was a risky pick that did not work out. The case lesson here might be that it is OK to draft players with injury risks, but only on upstanding citizen types.

You said you know the Easley history, What am I missing?.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm a Gator fan. Easley had a lot of preexisting knee issues coming into the league. That was coupled with an attitude problem. Mitchell is another example of a guy coming into the league with preexisting knee issues.

Yeah, it's not as if BB held a presser and said "Easley's knees are a mess, but it's strictly his attitude that led us to cut him." So people can guess either way, but it's all they'll be doing. If Easley's knees had allowed him to be an excellent player, he wouldn't have been cut. Whether or not he would have been traded is a different issue entirely, as BB's history shows.

 

[Kontradiction]

Didn't realize Mitchell was a first round pick. And, as for me, his choice was worth it just based upon his contributions in the Atlanta SB.

No, but he was a higher round pick that came into the league with bad knees. So the position of trusting the player to be fine (before we see him take one NFL snap) because “the team did their homework” on him doesn’t hold water. The team has seemingly done their homework on players with injury baggage before only to see the injuries become too much for those players to overcome.

You might want to just call it what it is: a calculated risk.

Sure, but his knees weren't what gave him the boot. I read further along after my prior post and it seemed like you agreed with this. Am I misinterpreting your comments?

We don’t know what caused him to get the boot for sure, but he certainly hasn’t become an impact player at his position and the knees have had a good amount to do with that. Easley lived off of an explosive first step which he no longer has. Michel could either go the Easley/Mitchell route or he could go the Ajayi route. Let’s hope for the latter.

 

[goheels22002]

Is Dominique Easley at practice in Foxboro? Is this The History Channel? What thread am I on?

 

[Bourne Again Christian]