PATRIOTS NEWS OTA's

[jimnance]

Fnord?

Nah I think even Fnord enjoys a nice perky titty once in a while

 

[jimnance]

Nah I think even Fnord enjoys a nice perky titty once in a while

Whoops, hey @Ian can I say "titty"?
Never posted that before. Don't wanna offend anyone.

 

[mgteich]

Bourne is being paid 7.7M dollars this year. That is enough to have the 30th highest cap hit among all WRs this year... and he will get a slight bump next year. Let me say that again. BOURNE IS GETTING PAID LIKE A #1 WR!!! And here we all talking about carrying him as our 4th or 5th guy. Why would we ever pay that kind of money to a guy who won't even see the field that much? Cause he's a good teammate? No way. We have other WRs who are good teammates and do it for cheaper.

Boutte is literally pennies on the dollar. And i would suggest to you him for about 1M can do just about anything Bourne does for 7.7M. Are we just going to pretend the cap doesn't matter? I mean, look at our defense! We were able to go from a pretty crap D to arguable a top 5 unit on paper due to our cap space. Spillane, Milton, Davis, ect... these guys are here because we had the cash to pay more than other teams were willing to. Period. I know Vrabel and others factored in... but the cash was the main thing.

If we want to continue this rebuild into next year... we need to get bad contracts off our books. Bourne is a bad contract. Let me ask if you... if Bourne went down today (I don't wish him too... just an an exercise) would you really feel all that different about the WR room? I wouldn't. Bourne hasn't produced much in years. The hopes he can rekindkle his career year now that McDaniels is back highly unlikely. And he would need to be AT LEAST that good to earn his contract.

Right now Boutte is cheap. Chism is cheap. We are stuck paying Polk anyway pretty much. Whoever we pick will be on the bench of a healthy scratch as much as not. Do we want those guys to be cheap young players who still have upside? Or 30 year old overprice Bourne who brings nothing of need to this team. At least Hollins brings size. A guy who hasn't broken 450 in 3 straight years?

I say cut him and go with the young upside guys who are either cheap or already pretty much fully paid for.

My six are: Diggs, Williams, Douglas, Hollins (vet leadership, size STs), Chism (pure upside and love his skillset) and then Polk vs Boutte. If Polk shows he is turning things around he can keep him spot... otherwise cut bait. Boutte is cheap this and next year and showed some promise.

As an aside i think the Chism vs Douglas diamatic is interesting.... both play a very similar style... both are super young and cheap. It could be like when they had Edelman and Amendola and you were curious how they would use both... they found a way though. So it isn't like it isn't possible. I don't subscribe to the idea you can't have multiple guys on the field with similar skillsets. If used well and you have other guys to give them space, you can get a player who has no business covering a guy like that to cover one of them, cause most teams don't have 2 guys with the skill set to cover slot guys. It really can work, so i am not afraid of doing it.

Bourne will not be "paid" $7.7M this year. However, you are only a little bit off. He would be paid over $6M. I suppose if the is the starter in the slot, we might pay him that, but I don't expect that to happen.

You are quite correct. Bourne will not be playing for us under the terms of his contract as a #4 WR.

DIGGS, WILLIAMS, DOUGLAS, HOLLINS are our 4 who will get all the reps. If everyone is healthy to start the season, Vrabel can decide who he wants as an inactive insurance policy on the 53 and who he wants of the Practice Squad.

The cost to cut Bourne is exactly $0.00. Perhaps, he will be kept late into camp when Vrabel can assess what he has, and the health of the players. I suspect that if Diggs or Williams were injured while Bourne is still here, then Bourne will be our #1 or #2. $6M is OK for that role. Of course, one of the rest could show that they are capable of being a starter for us for Game One, or not.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Bourne will not be "paid" $7.7M this year. However, you are only a little bit off. He would be paid over $6M. I suppose if the is the starter in the slot, we might pay him that, but I don't expect that to happen.

You are quite correct. Bourne will not be playing for us under the terms of his contract as a #4 WR.

DIGGS, WILLIAMS, DOUGLAS, HOLLINS are our 4 who will get all the reps. If everyone is healthy to start the season, Vrabel can decide who he wants as an inactive insurance policy on the 53 and who he wants of the Practice Squad.

The cost to cut Bourne is exactly $0.00. Perhaps, he will be kept late into camp when Vrabel can assess what he has, and the health of the players. I suspect that if Diggs or Williams were injured while Bourne is still here, then Bourne will be our #1 or #2. $6M is OK for that role. Of course, one of the rest could show that they are capable of being a starter for us for Game One, or not.

If there is no dead money hit then Bourne is gone.

 

[mgteich]

If there is no dead money hit then Bourne is gone.

My BOTTOM LINE is that Bourne is guaranteed ZERO money if we cut or trade him. He was given his guaranteed money last year. Perhaps the $5.5M we gave him last year was too much as so many seem to think. I don't think so. He was essentiall given $5.5M for 2024 plus a team option for 2025 and 2026. We don't need to pay him anything this year.
===========================
IMO, the issue is not dead money, i.e. money already committed but not yet accounted for in the cap.

It should make no difference to our decision-making that we gave Bourne a signing bonus that was spread out over 3 years for cap purposes.

The issue is new money. If we cut Bourne today, we would have account for the signing bonus this year. I have no problem with that. Committing to an additional $6M for this year's play is another issue entirely.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Vrabel is gunning for a winning record this year. If he and Josh feel that Bourne is one of our top 4 receivers, we’ll keep him. The $6m salary is irrelevant - we have the cap space.

 

[BobDigital]

Vrabel is gunning for a winning record this year. If he and Josh feel that Bourne is one of our top 4 receivers, we’ll keep him. The $6m salary is irrelevant - we have the cap space.

Cap space should be a resource you throw around on bad contracts just cause you have it. Any unspent cap carries over and can be used for next year.

Next year the Pats should seriously consider locking up Gonzo early. They will have other things they'll need to spend on as well. That extra 5 million we'd save by cutting Bourne in cap space could make that a lot easier.

Bad contracts can keep you from signing good contracts.

 

[captain stone]

Vrabel is gunning for a winning record this year. If he and Josh feel that Bourne is one of our top 4 receivers, we’ll keep him. The $6m salary is irrelevant - we have the cap space.

Dawghouse is already behind Diggs, Hollins, Pop, Booty & Williams in the pecking order, for various reasons; and by the time TC ends I hope to add Chism to that list as well. Barring injury of course, there is no way this dude makes this team with that contract.

 

[PatsFan2]

Bourne will not be "paid" $7.7M this year. However, you are only a little bit off. He would be paid over $6M. I suppose if the is the starter in the slot, we might pay him that, but I don't expect that to happen.

You are quite correct. Bourne will not be playing for us under the terms of his contract as a #4 WR.

DIGGS, WILLIAMS, DOUGLAS, HOLLINS are our 4 who will get all the reps. If everyone is healthy to start the season, Vrabel can decide who he wants as an inactive insurance policy on the 53 and who he wants of the Practice Squad.

The cost to cut Bourne is exactly $0.00. Perhaps, he will be kept late into camp when Vrabel can assess what he has, and the health of the players. I suspect that if Diggs or Williams were injured while Bourne is still here, then Bourne will be our #1 or #2. $6M is OK for that role. Of course, one of the rest could show that they are capable of being a starter for us for Game One, or not.

I getting the feeling we keep 6 WR's this Year.

 

[DarrylS]

With this much competition TC will even be more fun than usual Diggs, Hollins, Pop, Boutte, Williams and maybe Polk if he gets his crap together.. Bourne, Baker and may be even Chism will increase the pressure on the top crew.
Stay tuned fans this is gonna be fun...

 

[Clonamery]

If there is no dead money hit then Bourne is gone.

Reason why they couldn't trade him for Doritos and a salt lick.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Reason why they couldn't trade him for Doritos and a salt lick.

Yep. I don think he would have to go through waivers.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Cap space should be a resource you throw around on bad contracts just cause you have it. Any unspent cap carries over and can be used for next year.

Next year the Pats should seriously consider locking up Gonzo early. They will have other things they'll need to spend on as well. That extra 5 million we'd save by cutting Bourne in cap space could make that a lot easier.

Bad contracts can keep you from signing good contracts.

I was thinking the same thing last night. Sign Gonzalez long term while they have all the room to do it.

 

[The Gr8est]

I was thinking the same thing last night. Sign Gonzalez long term while they have all the room to do it.

Another reason to really want to push to field a winning season and positive future as soon as possible.

Let’s hope the Pats become a team that players WANT to play for, rather than being bribed to play here.

 

[jimnance]

Reason why they couldn't trade him for Doritos and a salt lick.

Salt lick? What are we back in the old cowboys days?
Wtf is a salt lick,Jethro?

 

[Clonamery]

Salt lick? What are we back in the old cowboys days?
Wtf is a salt lick,Jethro?

An iron pill, etc., for horses.

 

[jimnance]

An iron pill, etc., for horses.

Thanks, pardner.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Another reason to really want to push to field a winning season and positive future as soon as possible.

Let’s hope the Pats become a team that players WANT to play for, rather than being bribed to play here.

They have made massive progress in that area. The narrative around the NFL has flipped completely, they aren’t pigpen any more.

 

[TommyD4207]

I getting the feeling we keep 6 WR's this Year.

Every team EXCEPT us keeps at least 6 *every* year.

 

[javajunky]

Bourne is being paid 7.7M dollars this year. That is enough to have the 30th highest cap hit among all WRs this year... and he will get a slight bump next year. Let me say that again. BOURNE IS GETTING PAID LIKE A #1 WR!!! (His cap hit is in the top 32, in a real sense mathematically this is accurate). And here we all talking about carrying him as our 4th or 5th guy? Why would we ever pay that kind of money to a guy who won't even see the field that much? Cause he's a good teammate? No way. We have other WRs who are good teammates and do it for cheaper.

Boutte is literally pennies on the dollar. And i would suggest to you him for about 1M can do just about anything Bourne does for 7.7M. Are we just going to pretend the cap doesn't matter? I mean, look at our defense! We were able to go from a pretty crap D to arguable a top 5 unit on paper due to our cap space. Spillane, Milton, Davis, ect... these guys are here because we had the cash to pay more than other teams were willing to. Period. I know Vrabel and others factored in... but the cash was the main thing.

If we want to continue this rebuild into next year... we need to get bad contracts off our books. Bourne is a bad contract. Let me ask if you... if Bourne went down today (I don't wish him to... just an an exercise) would you really feel all that different about the WR room? I wouldn't. Bourne hasn't produced much in years. The hopes he can rekindle his career year now that McDaniels is back highly unlikely. And he would need to be AT LEAST that good to earn his contract.

Right now Boutte is cheap. Chism is cheap. We are stuck paying Polk anyway pretty much. Whoever we pick will be on the bench or a healthy scratch as much as not. Do we want those guys to be cheap young players who still have upside? Or 30 year old overprice Bourne who brings nothing of need to this team. At least Hollins brings size. Bourne is a guy who hasn't broken 450 yards in 3 straight years. Make all the excuses for it you want. That's a fact.

I say cut him and go with the young upside guys who are either cheap or already pretty much fully paid for.

My six are: Diggs, Williams, Douglas, Hollins (vet leadership, size STs), Chism (pure upside and love his skill set) and then Polk vs Boutte. If Polk shows he is turning things around he can keep his spot... otherwise cut bait. Boutte is cheap this and next year and showed some promise.

As an aside i think the Chism vs Douglas dynamic is interesting.... both play a very similar style... both are super young and cheap. It could be like when they had Edelman and Amendola and you were curious how they would use both... they found a way. So it isn't like it isn't possible. I don't subscribe to the idea you can't have multiple guys on the field with similar skill sets. If used well and you have other guys to give them space, you can get a player who has no business covering a guy like that to cover one of them, cause most teams don't have 2 guys with the skill set to cover slot guys. It really can work, so i am not afraid of doing it.

Henry 30 Hooper 31 Diggs 32 Hollins 32 Bourne 30
A new coaching staff is only going to keep an older player if they are just plain better than everyone else. So far, I only have Henry and Diggs on that list. Final cutdowns are going to be brutal, and two on this list are gone.