Henry Anderson

[Family]

lol. Admitting you are wrong would have been more honorable

When they do cut vested veterans, sign them to the practice squad, and promote them the first few weeks, will you admit you were wrong?

 

[Ring 6]

When they do cut vested veterans, sign them to the practice squad, and promote them the first few weeks, will you admit you were wrong?

Lol nice nice of the goalposts.
First that doesn’t prove
1) Veterans can be put on the ps without being exposed to other teams. You said thud and it’s wrong.
2) Other teams can’t sign them off the practice squad. Your scheme ignores this.
3) Players who could get a real job elsewhere would prefer $8000 a week and a wink that some player they kept instead of him will suddenly be cut in 3 weeks.
4) that Anderson’s contract was written with this scheme in mind. It wasn’t. In fact it’s an absurd claim because the contract is void the day he is cut.

Yes veteran players will end up on the ps. Some will get activated
That is not your argument.

Your argument is that the patriots created a scheme with Henry Anderson, oh wait, you were proven wrong on that and looked around and choose Mitchell instead, to sign them to a contract, tell them they didn’t intend to honor it because they have a grand scheme of using them as a tool by cutting them, even though they deserve to be on the 53 so they can activate them and get their play for 8000 a week, until call ups run out, then apparently cut the guy they created this scheme to keep and add him to the 53. All he has to do is play for less than the rookie minimum and promise not to go play for a team that wants to pay him like a veteran and put him on the 53. I guess because we are the Patriots so we are better than everyone? This to a player who has started 29 games and played 1700 snaps the last 2 years.
If you can’t see his ridiculous that is you are either purposefully being dumb or it’s hereditary.

 

[Family]

Lol nice nice of the goalposts.
First that doesn’t prove
1) Veterans can be put on the ps without being exposed to other teams. You said thud and it’s wrong.
2) Other teams can’t sign them off the practice squad. Your scheme ignores this.
3) Players who could get a real job elsewhere would prefer $8000 a week and a wink that some player they kept instead of him will suddenly be cut in 3 weeks.
4) that Anderson’s contract was written with this scheme in mind. It wasn’t. In fact it’s an absurd claim because the contract is void the day he is cut.

Yes veteran players will end up on the ps. Some will get activated
That is not your argument.

Your argument is that the patriots created a scheme with Henry Anderson, oh wait, you were proven wrong on that and looked around and choose Mitchell instead, to sign them to a contract, tell them they didn’t intend to honor it because they have a grand scheme of using them as a tool by cutting them, even though they deserve to be on the 53 so they can activate them and get their play for 8000 a week, until call ups run out, then apparently cut the guy they created this scheme to keep and add him to the 53. All he has to do is play for less than the rookie minimum and promise not to go play for a team that wants to pay him like a veteran and put him on the 53. I guess because we are the Patriots so we are better than everyone? This to a player who has started 29 games and played 1700 snaps the last 2 years.
If you can’t see his ridiculous that is you are either purposefully being dumb or it’s hereditary.

I can't make sense of most of your post, because I'm dumb. Must be hereditary.

But the answer is clear that you won't admit you are wrong when the Patriots do exactly what I am saying with vested veterans, whether they be Mitchell, Anderson, Cardona, Bethel, or Ferrenz.

 

[Ring 6]

I can't make sense of most of your post, because I'm dumb. Must be hereditary.

But the answer is clear that you won't admit you are wrong when the Patriots do exactly what I am saying with vested veterans, whether they be Mitchell, Anderson, Cardona, Bethel, or Ferrenz.

Because they won’t, and even if they did, 95% of what you said is factually wrong and the end result is only there by coincidence.

 

[ralmat55]

I can't make sense of most of your post, because I'm dumb. Must be hereditary.

But the answer is clear that you won't admit you are wrong when the Patriots do exactly what I am saying with vested veterans, whether they be Mitchell, Anderson, Cardona, Bethel, or Ferrenz.

#Family. You’re not dumb. Your theory is more factually correct than the “facts” being used in the arguments against you.

In 2020, I posted the Pats could cut Hoyer getting down to 53 and put him on the practice squad for the first few weeks to protect a promising player from the waiver wire. Based on Mgtech’s responding post, you’d have thought I had suggested Belichick commit a high crime or misdemeanor if he did what I suggested. Well, they didn’t cut Hoyer in 2020, but they employed the strategy with Nick Folk, Then in 2021, they did it with both Folk and Hoyer.

The other poster who’s bullying you over “factual “ mistakes in your theory while, what poses as his own counter argument, is riddled with his own factual inaccuracies (to begin with, the PS maximum weekly salary in 2022 for a player with 2+ years experience is $19,900 not $ 8,000) likes to argue just to hear himself argue.

The biggest flaw in your theory is accepting Bedard’s flawed thesis that allowing 3 elevations per player increases the 53 man roster to a 56 man roster early in the season. The flaw in Bedard’s logic is that only 2 players can be elevated per game, so the 53 man roster is only increased to a 55 man roster using his basic logic.

The Pats COULD stash 6 veterans with 4+ years of experience on the PS while the 53 man roster settles and a better time arrives to sneak promising players past waivers onto the PS than cutdown day when every team is scouring the waiver wire and have a week or so to experiment with claims before their full attention diverts to game prep for week 1.(I’ve noticed Thursday is a day teams use to sneak players through waivers to the PS as other teams are deep in game prep and have set their rosters for the week).

As you alluded to with Henry Anderson using guaranteed salary, teams can also try to stash vested vets on the PS for longer duration if not the entire season. Based on what’s been reported about Brian Hoyer’s current contract, Hoyer would actually earn more money spending the season on the PS than if he was on the 53 man roster but not active on the game day roster. His salary is guaranteed, so he gets paid that weekly either way. He has game day roster bonuses which are only paid if he’s on the 48 man game day roster. So, if Jones and Zappe dress, he doesn’t earn his roster bonus while he would have received up to $19,900 for the week on the PS plus his guarantee.

Henry Anderson has $750,000 of guaranteed salary in 2022. If cut and signed to the PS, he would receive his $750,000 plus $19,900 a week or $1.13 million which is $10,000 more than the minimum for a player in his 8th season ($1.12 million). It’s not inconceivable at all that no other team would be willing to pay him more than the minimum making it worth his while to stick around for the season whether he’s ever activated to the 53 or not.

YES, every veteran could sign with another team rather than the Pats PS and can sign from the PS to another team subject to the 3 game minimum on the signing team’s 53 man roster. It’s a risk but everything is a risk. BUT, there are a couple of considerations which minimize this possibility.

First, teams are leery of signing vested vets to their 53 until after game 1 is played because all vested vets on the 53 man roster for game one have their salaries fully guaranteed. Secondly, most contracts contain offset language in them. Any salary another team would pay the player would be offset by a reduction of the guarantee the player would collect from the Patriots. In Hoyer’s case, the signing team would have to pay him $1.5 million plus whatever more it would take to entice a guy who’s made tens of millions in his career, been to SBs, and won one to leave his family behind in NE for months.

Now, these roster machinations cost real money and use salary cap space which for a team like the Pats tight up against the cap might limit what they do. For instance, keeping Hoyer on the 53 would take away a roster spot for say Branden Schooler which would save $695,000 in money and cap space, plus, possibly, a lower PS salary to the player who’d be in the PS rather than Hoyer. It will be interesting to see what moves the Pats make or don’t make using the PS.

#Family you’re are a really good poster, and I enjoy your contributions. Don’t apologize for being right.

 

[Family]

Thank you much Kenneth Sims. You are an excellent poster, offering good information and insights. This rule change is talked about so little, and is a huge piece of roster building. The reason I began this thread was because I wasn't sure of the specifics, and how it fit Henry Anderson, but now it seems the thread should have been broader to include the rule change and all vested players because it appears few grasp it fully.

I finally found the rule changes printed in a tweet.


Section 5 at the top of page 2 says that a player may be elevated three times, so Bedard was correct. The roster is essentially 56 players if Bill did his homework when signing.

Butler is no longer available to use, and Thornton's injury means a vested player will be signed immediately after being cut, replacing the rookie on IR. Maybe Wilkerson too. This is why I said in the Butler IR thread that depth took a little hit because he was a prime candidate for the PS. Yes, the team has 7 ahead on the depth chart, but a couple of more injuries, and it's back to the waivers, which Butler could have cushioned all season if he had anything left and didn't get hurt.

YES, every veteran could sign with another team rather than the Pats PS and can sign from the PS to another team subject to the 3 game minimum on the signing team’s 53 man roster. It’s a risk but everything is a risk. BUT, there are a couple of considerations which minimize this possibility.

There's some risk to every move, but I don't see why Bill wouldn't have discussed this with players upfront. When the rule first was placed I could see confusion with veterans, but players like Butler, Anderson, Cardona, and Ferrenz should be tuned in, or the team didn't do their homework. If a player like Anderson stays, he could see a payout similar to what (ironically) Mark Anderson received from Buffalo years back, if successful. And there have been many players since who have earned huge pay days sticking with Bill.

This area has become a huge piece of roster building and the board doesn't seem up-to-date on it, unless I missed the discussion on another thread.

 

[moosekill]

Thank you much Kenneth Sims. You are an excellent poster, offering good information and insights. This rule change is talked about so little, and is a huge piece of roster building. The reason I began this thread was because I wasn't sure of the specifics, and how it fit Henry Anderson, but now it seems the thread should have been broader to include the rule change and all vested players because it appears few grasp it fully.

I finally found the rule changes printed in a tweet.


Section 5 at the top of page 2 says that a player may be elevated three times, so Bedard was correct. The roster is essentially 56 players if Bill did his homework when signing.

Butler is no longer available to use, and Thornton's injury means a vested player will be signed immediately after being cut, replacing the rookie on IR. Maybe Wilkerson too. This is why I said in the Butler IR thread that depth took a little hit because he was a prime candidate for the PS. Yes, the team has 7 ahead on the depth chart, but a couple of more injuries, and it's back to the waivers, which Butler could have cushioned all season if he had anything left and didn't get hurt.



There's some risk to every move, but I don't see why Bill wouldn't have discussed this with players upfront. When the rule first was placed I could see confusion with veterans, but players like Butler, Anderson, Cardona, and Ferrenz should be tuned in, or the team didn't do their homework. If a player like Anderson stays, he could see a payout similar to what (ironically) Mark Anderson received from Buffalo years back, if successful. And there have been many players since who have earned huge pay days sticking with Bill.

This area has become a huge piece of roster building and the board doesn't seem up-to-date on it, unless I missed the discussion on another thread.

But Bedard isn't really right, right? Once on the practice squad another team can sign them off the practice squad any time, right? So while they don't have to go through waivers they still are completely exposed sitting on the practice squad. So it still only works for players who aren't good enough to entice another team to pay them enough to leave their current team. It worked with Nick Folk, but.... He was unemployed before the Patriots picked him up and had a pretty good season but was in a fight with Quinn for a spot. No one was sure who would win, so there wasn't really a market for him at that time. Now, however it wouldn't work because someone would grab him.

I assume the players this is done with are players who are vets who are happy with where they are and aren't really worth any more than the veteran minimum type contract they currently have.

 

[moosekill]

Further, and I may be wrong, but my understanding is, if a team grabs a player on waivers from another team, they assume their current contract, but a team grabbing a player off the practice squad has to agree to a new contract. Essentially giving the player more power. So if the patriots promised Folk they would call him up and pay him x$$ if he didn’t take leave, another team would have to outbid the patriots offer and probably promise a spot.

 

[Family]

But Bedard isn't really right, right? Once on the practice squad another team can sign them off the practice squad any time, right? So while they don't have to go through waivers they still are completely exposed sitting on the practice squad..

Yes they can, but in the past, there have been players elevated to the 53 because another team was interested. If a player is pooched, it would be more common for him to go to his original team and say, "hey I'm out of here," so in most cases the team would have a right of first refusal.

Further, and I may be wrong, but my understanding is, if a team grabs a player on waivers from another team, they assume their current contract, but a team grabbing a player off the practice squad has to agree to a new contract. Essentially giving the player more power.

You are right that it's not a clean 56, every situation is different, and there is some risk, but many of these veterans received a smallish signing bonus plus the minimum. They were never hugely sought after. Anderson accepted a pay cut. I know injuries come up, but most of these veterans are either lifers (Ferrenz, Cardona) or towards the end (Butler. Anderson) and are looking for a role. If there's good communication between team and player, the team should be ok, and if you lose Henry Anderson, so be it. Wouldn't most posters want to keep Ray or Roberts instead anyway?

 

[moosekill]

Which is why they now allow a team to bring a player up and down 3?? times without going through waivers. It gives the players a bit more power to control their situation.

All that being said, it still will only work in certain situations, and thinking it is a way to easily expand the roster by 3 or 4 players is probably not very accurate. In certain cases it might work, in most it won't, and Bedard is an idiot, so we always have that going.

 

[moosekill]

Yes they can, but in the past, there have been players elevated to the 53 because another team was interested. If a player is pooched, it would be more common for him to go to his original team and say, "hey I'm out of here," so in most cases the team would have a right of first refusal.



You are right that it's not a clean 56, every situation is different, and there is some risk, but many of these veterans received a smallish signing bonus plus the minimum. They were never hugely sought after. Anderson accepted a pay cut. I know injuries come up, but most of these veterans are either lifers (Ferrenz, Cardona) or towards the end (Butler. Anderson) and are looking for a role. If there's good communication between team and player, the team should be ok, and if you lose Henry Anderson, so be it. Wouldn't most posters want to keep Ray or Roberts instead anyway?

Like Bedard, I think most of the posters on here are idiots too, so I put little stock into what they say, since many of them base their thoughts on what people like Bedard say.

I personally would rather have the Patriots win the superbowl this year, and would hope that the Patriots keep the players who will help them the most to do that. Many of the posters hate most every veteran on the team and love every free agent rookie. So I don't really put a lot of stock in that. Playing against 3rd string coffee baristas Ray and Robert's looked pretty good, which doesn't really mean very much, but many posters on here don't really get that.

 

[Family]

I personally would rather have the Patriots win the superbowl this year.

Me too and this is a strategy to build depth, so when there are inevitable injuries, the team isn't holding tryouts during the week to fill spots.

 

[mgteich]

Further, and I may be wrong, but my understanding is, if a team grabs a player on waivers from another team, they assume their current contract, but a team grabbing a player off the practice squad has to agree to a new contract. Essentially giving the player more power. So if the patriots promised Folk they would call him up and pay him x$$ if he didn’t take leave, another team would have to outbid the patriots offer and probably promise a spot.

Two offers

Patriots: I promise to promote you this week, and a few more times; but you aren't worth a roster spot on our 53-man squad. You should sign with us. After all we matched the other team's offer.

Other team: I believe that you are worthy of a roster spot, and I will guarantee you a roster spot for at least 3 weeks, after which you are a free agent if it doesn't work for us.
=============
Maybe a veteran on his last legs might accept the patriots offer. I suspect that most would want the opportunity for another team.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes they can, but in the past, there have been players elevated to the 53 because another team was interested. If a player is pooched, it would be more common for him to go to his original team and say, "hey I'm out of here," so in most cases the team would have a right of first refusal.



You are right that it's not a clean 56, every situation is different, and there is some risk, but many of these veterans received a smallish signing bonus plus the minimum. They were never hugely sought after. Anderson accepted a pay cut. I know injuries come up, but most of these veterans are either lifers (Ferrenz, Cardona) or towards the end (Butler. Anderson) and are looking for a role. If there's good communication between team and player, the team should be ok, and if you lose Henry Anderson, so be it. Wouldn't most posters want to keep Ray or Roberts instead anyway?

There is no right of refusal.

You seem to think that a player who is told he isn’t wanted on the roster but can stick around and practice for peanuts and hope you maybe get activated has warm feelings or gratitude and loyalty toward the team that cut him.

You are not moving your goal posts toward reality. If the team wants Ray ot Roberts more Anderson us cut. If no one wants him a spot may be available for him to be on the practice squad and get action if there are injuries.
If the team wants Anderson to be one of their active game day players they simply will not cut him.

 

[Ring 6]

Me too and this is a strategy to build depth, so when there are inevitable injuries, the team isn't holding tryouts during the week to fill spots.

It’s not really a strategy at all. It’s taking the guys you didn’t want on your 53 and building your practice squad with some of them.

 

[Ring 6]

#Family. You’re not dumb. Your theory is more factually correct than the “facts” being used in the arguments against you.

In 2020, I posted the Pats could cut Hoyer getting down to 53 and put him on the practice squad for the first few weeks to protect a promising player from the waiver wire. Based on Mgtech’s responding post, you’d have thought I had suggested Belichick commit a high crime or misdemeanor if he did what I suggested. Well, they didn’t cut Hoyer in 2020, but they employed the strategy with Nick Folk, Then in 2021, they did it with both Folk and Hoyer.

The other poster who’s bullying you over “factual “ mistakes in your theory while, what poses as his own counter argument, is riddled with his own factual inaccuracies (to begin with, the PS maximum weekly salary in 2022 for a player with 2+ years experience is $19,900 not $ 8,000) likes to argue just to hear himself argue.

The biggest flaw in your theory is accepting Bedard’s flawed thesis that allowing 3 elevations per player increases the 53 man roster to a 56 man roster early in the season. The flaw in Bedard’s logic is that only 2 players can be elevated per game, so the 53 man roster is only increased to a 55 man roster using his basic logic.

The Pats COULD stash 6 veterans with 4+ years of experience on the PS while the 53 man roster settles and a better time arrives to sneak promising players past waivers onto the PS than cutdown day when every team is scouring the waiver wire and have a week or so to experiment with claims before their full attention diverts to game prep for week 1.(I’ve noticed Thursday is a day teams use to sneak players through waivers to the PS as other teams are deep in game prep and have set their rosters for the week).

As you alluded to with Henry Anderson using guaranteed salary, teams can also try to stash vested vets on the PS for longer duration if not the entire season. Based on what’s been reported about Brian Hoyer’s current contract, Hoyer would actually earn more money spending the season on the PS than if he was on the 53 man roster but not active on the game day roster. His salary is guaranteed, so he gets paid that weekly either way. He has game day roster bonuses which are only paid if he’s on the 48 man game day roster. So, if Jones and Zappe dress, he doesn’t earn his roster bonus while he would have received up to $19,900 for the week on the PS plus his guarantee.

Henry Anderson has $750,000 of guaranteed salary in 2022. If cut and signed to the PS, he would receive his $750,000 plus $19,900 a week or $1.13 million which is $10,000 more than the minimum for a player in his 8th season ($1.12 million). It’s not inconceivable at all that no other team would be willing to pay him more than the minimum making it worth his while to stick around for the season whether he’s ever activated to the 53 or not.

YES, every veteran could sign with another team rather than the Pats PS and can sign from the PS to another team subject to the 3 game minimum on the signing team’s 53 man roster. It’s a risk but everything is a risk. BUT, there are a couple of considerations which minimize this possibility.

First, teams are leery of signing vested vets to their 53 until after game 1 is played because all vested vets on the 53 man roster for game one have their salaries fully guaranteed. Secondly, most contracts contain offset language in them. Any salary another team would pay the player would be offset by a reduction of the guarantee the player would collect from the Patriots. In Hoyer’s case, the signing team would have to pay him $1.5 million plus whatever more it would take to entice a guy who’s made tens of millions in his career, been to SBs, and won one to leave his family behind in NE for months.

Now, these roster machinations cost real money and use salary cap space which for a team like the Pats tight up against the cap might limit what they do. For instance, keeping Hoyer on the 53 would take away a roster spot for say Branden Schooler which would save $695,000 in money and cap space, plus, possibly, a lower PS salary to the player who’d be in the PS rather than Hoyer. It will be interesting to see what moves the Pats make or don’t make using the PS.

#Family you’re are a really good poster, and I enjoy your contributions. Don’t apologize for being right.

Wow the guy with the worst takes on the board disagrees with me, what shall I do?

 

[Family]

Two offers

Patriots: I promise to promote you this week, and a few more times; but you aren't worth a roster spot on our 53-man squad. You should sign with us. After all we matched the other team's offer.

Other team: I believe that you are worthy of a roster spot, and I will guarantee you a roster spot for at least 3 weeks, after which you are a free agent if it doesn't work for us.
=============
Maybe a veteran on his last legs might accept the patriots offer. I suspect that most would want the opportunity for another team.

They did exactly this last year TWICE.

The team cut the kicker who had just set the league record for most consecutive field goals, as well as the only backup quarterback they had for a rookie QB.

Flash to one year later, and both received nice guaranteed contracts.

Coincidence?

Same will happen this year in some form (someone will need to be cut to IR Thornton) to certain vested veterans players. The thread was wondering if Anderson would be one, not if they would use this strategy on someone. That's a given.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

As you alluded to with Henry Anderson using guaranteed salary, teams can also try to stash vested vets on the PS for longer duration if not the entire season. Based on what’s been reported about Brian Hoyer’s current contract, Hoyer would actually earn more money spending the season on the PS than if he was on the 53 man roster but not active on the game day roster. His salary is guaranteed, so he gets paid that weekly either way. He has game day roster bonuses which are only paid if he’s on the 48 man game day roster. So, if Jones and Zappe dress, he doesn’t earn his roster bonus while he would have received up to $19,900 for the week on the PS plus his guarantee.

I'm not sure about this. I know that for UDFAs their PS earnings count against any guarantees. I imagine the same would hold true for veterans unless their contract explicitly said otherwise.