Pats - Titans postgame thread

[Ring 6]

I guess we disagree on the bolded part. Like always, there is still 2 weeks of Pre-Season so much can change, but Im talking about guys that are showing enough to prove to me that they can play today. Some examples:

Brooks, Krossen/Dawson, Munson (after last game, at least), Calhoun/Rivers (Ive seen plenty of people putting one or another), Cowart, One Extra OL, Gunner (or Berrios, although I don't think he has the potential...). Obviosuly Im not including the rookies that have already showed enough to stick

Basically comes down to one question: From here on, which players can give the most return, not only this year, but on following years as well? That's the mentality Im going for

I guess I am confused by your post then
Are you asking if the young guys are better than the old guys or if we should keep them for potential even if the older guy is better for the team this year?

Brooks isn’t a young developmental player. He is 27 and a 5 year vet. A year younger than Harmon.
Crossen makes or breaks on special teams and I don’t see him as ever a legit starting potential corner
Cowart is making the team.
I don’t see anyone else you listed as a high potential guy or a guy (Rivers/Calhoun) that have been around long enough that it’s about now because if they haven’t developed yet they never will.

Maybe I would better understand if you gave examples X vs Y because I’m not seeing examples of best long term return vs short term return that are legit questions.

 

[Ring 6]

Pennels probably not even going to make the team.

Of course he is. He is one if the starting DTs.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Another post where I need the “well, duh!” Icon.

Up until 25 years ago, the Patriots were more like the other franchise than we would care to admit!!!!

 

[Marqui]

Of course he is. He is one if the starting DTs.

The only thing he's been starting for is the 3rd string defense for the past 3 weeks in TC and preseason.

 

[Family]

Of course he is. He is one if the starting DTs.

If Pennel is still one of the starters, he was playing last night when no other starter was, and didn't play early in the game when the few that played were in.

 

[Ring 6]

The only thing he's been starting for is the 3rd string defense for the past 3 weeks in TC and preseason.

Then I guess you will have to wait and see.

 

[n1997y]

Up until 25 years ago, the Patriots were more like the other franchise than we would care to admit!!!!

Best way to change a team’s fortunes is a change in ownership.

 

[Ring 6]

If Pennel is still one of the starters, he was playing last night when no other starter was, and didn't play early in the game when the few that played were in.

That is not uncommon under Belichick.
I’m not going to argue.
I’ve stated my opinion and there will be proof one way or the other. Let’s revisit when there is an answer.

 

[patchick]

Compared to butler I don’t think you are sacrificing anything for the role.
Compared to Pennel you can cut many other players in order to keep Cowart because even though they are listed at the same position on the roster sheet they truly play different positions.

I think we got lucky last year that guy stepped up playing a role that really isn’t what he is best suited for


As I see the DT roles we need:
1) A giant run stuffed (wilfork, Branch etc)(a double team eater)
2) a big more versatile DT better playing on the G than the C (not as adept at eating double teams)
3) a guy who backups up both 1 and 2, somewhat of each. This guy actually could end up playing the most snaps because he is playing both roles.
4) a smaller guy who can rush the passer but struggles in straight up run d

Last year Brown was 2. Guy is best as 3.
Shelton should have been 1.
Ultimately Guy and Brown shared 1 and 2, both not being used to their best ability. Butler was 3, also in the wrong role out if necessity.

I think this year Pennell and guy are 1 and 2. We don’t really have a 3 but Shelton is “backup 1” meaning we can play any 2 of the 3 together.

Butler and Cowart are in competition but could easily both make the team.

I would be very against eliminating one of the 3 true DTs to carry 2 “4s”.

You don't think Butler is ahead of Cowart in terms of readiness? Butler was active in every single game for the past 2 seasons, and if they both ended up on the 53 I'd expect Cowart to be inactive game 1. To me, that fits the definition you asked for: a veteran who could potentially lose his job to a less ready rookie with a higher ceiling.

But what I'm really curious about is your basis for naming Pennel a starter. He's playing 2nd/3rd-string reps in practice, and looked ineffective in the second half last night against the Titans' dregs. I'd love to think I'm wrong about Pennel, though! What am I missing?

 

[Family]

That is not uncommon under Belichick.
I’m not going to argue.
I’ve stayed my opinion and there will be proof one way or the other. Let’s revisit when there is an answer.

It is uncommon under BB.

It might not be an absolutely definitive every single time, but it's the most reliable indicator, even more than the way we see performance on the field.

 

[jah]

That is not uncommon under Belichick.
I’m not going to argue.
I’ve stayed my opinion and there will be proof one way or the other. Let’s revisit when there is an answer.

It might not mean that Pennel is definitely in trouble but I think it does mean BB is trying to figure out what to do with him.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I know hindsight is 20/20 but why did Chase Winovich last to the 3rd round?

I think he's a little too cerebral for some teams... (like Thuney was afraid of being perceived) Look at his tweet quoting Shakespeare to which Brady responded " read your playbook". How many NFL players tweet from the Bard????

Good ESPN article on him...
Inside the mind of Chase Winovich, the NFL draft's most curious prospect

 

[jah]

You don't think Butler is ahead of Cowart in terms of readiness? Butler was active in every single game for the past 2 seasons, and if they both ended up on the 53 I'd expect Cowart to be inactive game 1. To me, that fits the definition you asked for: a veteran who could potentially lose his job to a less ready rookie with a higher ceiling.

But what I'm really curious about is your basis for naming Pennel a starter. He's playing 2nd/3rd-string reps in practice, and looked ineffective in the second half last night against the Titans' dregs. I'd love to think I'm wrong about Pennel, though! What am I missing?

If you had suggested a month ago that Pennel would be fighting for a spot on the 53, I'd have reacted the same way as Andy. I had him as my #1 FA target before we got him so of course I had high expectations. However, things do appear to be changing. He really was playing with and against scrubs and didn't even look good there. That much cannot be argued.

That said, we saw Jason McCourty in a similar situation last year and he worked out okay, so Andy isn't completely wrong here.

 

[JayNM]

I guess I am confused by your post then
Are you asking if the young guys are better than the old guys or if we should keep them for potential even if the older guy is better for the team this year?

Brooks isn’t a young developmental player. He is 27 and a 5 year vet. A year younger than Harmon.
Crossen makes or breaks on special teams and I don’t see him as ever a legit starting potential corner
Cowart is making the team.
I don’t see anyone else you listed as a high potential guy or a guy (Rivers/Calhoun) that have been around long enough that it’s about now because if they haven’t developed yet they never will.

Calhoun and Brooks are in their 2nd (EDIT First) year with the team, so the potential comes from being coached by our staff, who are the likeliest guys to put players in optimal position to play. It has happened before and happens quite often here.

Rivers is 25, 2 years out of an ACL. This is his make or break year for sure, but he's making the most out of it, it seems. Crossen still is young so i dont know if I agree with your take here.

All in all, Im saying that this year, maybe the guys we keep aren't up to the same level of Harmon and others, but next year (the year after) they could be on their level, while the incumbent players are most likely plateu'd or declining. I mean, even if only one of these develop into a better player than a current back-up, it would mean that his net return (Production on the field or Comp Pick) is greater than what Harmon (and others) would give, from here to the future.

Im not trying to change anyone's mind about this, btw. The subject of Greater Future Return vs Maximizing Short Term is absolutely personal and hypothetical.

 

[DaBruinz]

Interesting that Dawson is seeing a lot of snaps at safety right now.

When he was drafted, several people had him pegged as a long-term replacement for DMac.

 

[DaBruinz]

Calhoun and Brooks are in their 2nd year with the team, so the potential comes from being coached by our staff, who are the likeliest guys to put players in optimal position to play. It has happened before and happens quite often here.

Huh? Both were just signed this off-season..

 

[mgteich]

skipper is being coached up for 2020. I doubt very much that he will be the swing OT for Game 1.

Skipper will be the swing tackle. Scar is coaching him up.

 

[maust]

I know hindsight is 20/20 but why did Chase Winovich last to the 3rd round?

Size. Much like what happened with Bruschi.

 

[JayNM]

Huh? Both were just signed this off-season..

Yep, sorry. Helps my argument though, since it means that the Staff hasnt had all that much time to fully touch their untapped potential (if there is any)

 

[Uptown]

Apologies if already posted