Reiss: Kyle Arrington (CB) to be promoted to active roster

[mgteich]

We've Added Another DB

We have a dozen (including Slater). You'd think that we are getting ready to play Manning or Brees.

 

[Pats726]

Apparently Simmons just wasn't fitting in. That being the case, we didn't need another offensive lineman to replace him. We have 4 OT's and 5 interior linemen on the 53-man squad, plus Wendell and Bussey on the Practice Squad. That seems to be plenty.
=============================================================
Apparently, Belichick likes Arrington enough to him sit at the end of the bench. There is certainly room next to Wheatley, Ohrnberger and Brace. Given that we have other players that are are out injured, one of these four will be active (not likely when there are more healthy bodies). My guess is that Brace will be active for awhile.

Not sure about Simmons not fitting in...that is just speculation. With so many injured players that they are keeping roster spots for, it was a luxury for a 10th OL. Apparently they found more value in activating Arrington to the squad. Sometimes it comes down to a numbers game as opposed to "not fitting in".
There are also multiple reasons possible for activating Arrington. They may have seen that another team would sign him and they like him for teh long term. (They did that last year when they signed Connolly later in the year; it was rumored other teams were looking to sign him.) Also, with cornerbacks going down as in Indy, it would prevent them from signing him. (Do you think Indy would sign him a week before the game ala Ryan's reading for O'Connell??) Also..they may wish to bolster the defensive backfield playing Manning and Brees in a few weeks...and/or have another tough fast special teams player. Possible reasons to sign him.
Yes, they could sit him, but they could play him as well on special teams. Certainly Brace will be active as I doubt they will go with 4 true DL. It's his time to show what he has.

 

[Kontradiction]

With the two best passing offenses in the league on the horizon, having another hitter in the nickel and dime sure won't hurt.

Yeah. Shows you the kind of route BB is taking on beating the Colts. I like it. Sounds like some early 2000's Patriots stuff to me. Hit their receivers when the ball goes their way and hit 'em hard. Personally, I'd like to see Dallas Clark get his clock cleaned (not injured) right off the bat.

 

[NEPATSFAN]

Got the scoop from Kyle last night, he is excited about being activated. He hopes to be dressed and on the field Sunday. Can't wait to see him play.

 

[Kontradiction]

Got the scoop from Kyle last night, he is excited about being activated. He hopes to be dressed and on the field Sunday. Can't wait to see him play.

Alright Kyle, well good luck this Sunday!

 

[Patspsycho]

Got the scoop from Kyle last night, he is excited about being activated. He hopes to be dressed and on the field Sunday. Can't wait to see him play.

I think you mean he is excited about being put on the roster, but not even he will know if he's activated, until Sunday morning.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

5'10" / 196. First year. Hard hitter, played for Hofstra.

?

Two years behind Marques Colston..Wonder if he covered him in practice...

 

[WhiZa]

If Wheatly is active, the they just moved him to the 53 to keep him from other teams. which doesn't make sense to me with the Pats depth and the other players available for the picking but I suppose there's some validity. If Arrington is active then you know he impressed in practice whether it's on ST or defense.

That's all contingent on Whilite being out.

 

[mgteich]

I think that it is reasonable to sign a player to the 53 who will compete with Wheatley next year for reps.

If Wheatly is active, the they just moved him to the 53 to keep him from other teams. which doesn't make sense to me with the Pats depth and the other players available for the picking but I suppose there's some validity. If Arrington is active then you know he impressed in practice whether it's on ST or defense.

That's all contingent on Whilite being out.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I think that it is reasonable to sign a player to the 53 who will compete with Wheatley next year for reps.

Bit presumptuous, eh?

 

[mgteich]

SIMMONS
I compare the opportunity of Simmons to that of McGowan. Both were veterans who had started for other teams. Both had uncertain future and had question marks with regard to talent and value to the patriots. Both were given multi-year contracts. Both safety and guard has starters in place and youngsters to compete for future reps.

McGowan was so good that he displaced one of the starters at safety and is a player we all would like to see extended.

On the other hand, Simmons had even a better opportunity. There is no guarantee that thre will be a cap next year. We could lose both starters and both of our veterans and be reduced to having Connolly as our veteran among the group of competing guards. With this chance, Simmons couldn't play well enough to justify a roster spot as a player to compete next year for a roster position (like Wheatley and Orhnberger).

We always have room at the bottom of the roster for players who aren't expected to contribute this year (absent an injury or two) and who are solid prospects for 2010). Simmons could not demonstrate that he was a better 2010 prospect than Arrington or Lockett. It is disappointing to me. I would have liked to see a veteran backup guard for 2010 much as we have LeVoir as a backup tackle. We have 2010 needs at guard. We are talking about draftees already. Simmons signed for three years might have avoided the need, IF he were able.
===================
BRACE

You say it is time to see what Brace has. Maybe or maybe not. If Wright, Warren, Wilfork, Pryor, and Burgess are all healthy, I don't see many reps for Brace (who I also expect to be active). Of course, Banta-Cain, Woods and Thomas may also see work on the defensive line.

Did Pryor get meaningful reps in the first half of the last two games.

Wheatley is in a similar position to Brace. If Wilhite is out, one would expect Wheatley to have to show what he has OR NOT. Perhaps we will just need to count more on Bodden, Springs, Butler and the safeties.

Not sure about Simmons not fitting in...that is just speculation. With so many injured players that they are keeping roster spots for, it was a luxury for a 10th OL. Apparently they found more value in activating Arrington to the squad. Sometimes it comes down to a numbers game as opposed to "not fitting in".
There are also multiple reasons possible for activating Arrington. They may have seen that another team would sign him and they like him for teh long term. (They did that last year when they signed Connolly later in the year; it was rumored other teams were looking to sign him.) Also, with cornerbacks going down as in Indy, it would prevent them from signing him. (Do you think Indy would sign him a week before the game ala Ryan's reading for O'Connell??) Also..they may wish to bolster the defensive backfield playing Manning and Brees in a few weeks...and/or have another tough fast special teams player. Possible reasons to sign him.
Yes, they could sit him, but they could play him as well on special teams. Certainly Brace will be active as I doubt they will go with 4 true DL. It's his time to show what he has.

 

[BPF]

We have 4 OT's and 5 interior linemen on the 53-man squad, plus Wendell and Bussey on the Practice Squad.

Bussey is on IR, Wendell is the only OL on PS.

 

[Patspsycho]

Arrington promoted, not activated.

Reasons:

1) To keep him with the Patriots- from the sounds of it, he is a promising prospect.

2) Keep him away from the Colts who are hungry at CB, and if they had plucked him, it would have been perfect timing for them in terms of acquiring a few nuggets of wisdom, per schematics and tendencies.

 

[DarrylS]

Great to see a small school guy make it this far...

 

[BritPat]

Great to see a small school guy make it this far...

Indeed. I think it also shows just how hard someone like Colston has worked, and just how talented he is.

 

[Pats726]

SIMMONS
I compare the opportunity of Simmons to that of McGowan. Both were veterans who had started for other teams. Both had uncertain future and had question marks with regard to talent and value to the patriots. Both were given multi-year contracts. Both safety and guard has starters in place and youngsters to compete for future reps.

McGowan was so good that he displaced one of the starters at safety and is a player we all would like to see extended.

On the other hand, Simmons had even a better opportunity. There is no guarantee that thre will be a cap next year. We could lose both starters and both of our veterans and be reduced to having Connolly as our veteran among the group of competing guards. With this chance, Simmons couldn't play well enough to justify a roster spot as a player to compete next year for a roster position (like Wheatley and Orhnberger).

We always have room at the bottom of the roster for players who aren't expected to contribute this year (absent an injury or two) and who are solid prospects for 2010). Simmons could not demonstrate that he was a better 2010 prospect than Arrington or Lockett. It is disappointing to me. I would have liked to see a veteran backup guard for 2010 much as we have LeVoir as a backup tackle. We have 2010 needs at guard. We are talking about draftees already. Simmons signed for three years might have avoided the need, IF he were able.
===================

You compared Simmons to McGowan but other than a superficial glance, there situations are quite different. McGowan was all ready for camp, while Simmons was signed just before the first game and was not really ready.
Everyone seems to always think when a player is cut that it's a negative.."he's playing bad" "he's not in the future" blah blah blah It might have been a numbers game and having a 10th lineman is a luxury..and obviously when there is a roster with a handful injured there is little wiggle room. Who is to say in the future they will not sign him??
Simmons is not a special teams player so comparing him to Lockett or Arrington doesn't make it.

BRACE
You say it is time to see what Brace has. Maybe or maybe not. If Wright, Warren, Wilfork, Pryor, and Burgess are all healthy, I don't see many reps for Brace (who I also expect to be active). Of course, Banta-Cain, Woods and Thomas may also see work on the defensive line.

Did Pryor get meaningful reps in the first half of the last two games.

Wheatley is in a similar position to Brace. If Wilhite is out, one would expect Wheatley to have to show what he has OR NOT. Perhaps we will just need to count more on Bodden, Springs, Butler and the safeties.

I think it's obvious without Green Brace should get some playing time..if he's active but a DNP then what does that say? Pryor played some..not early on...I would agree Wheatly is in a similar position.

 

[mgteich]

Of course it is a negative for a player when he is cut, unless he is cut early in the preseaon in order to allow him to find work elsewhere.

I agree that it is a numbers game with Simmons, but it is also a talent game. He couldn't beat out Connolly or Ohrnberger and he isn't good enough to warrant keeping as a 10th OL. It is about now and about the future. Connolly and Ohrnberger were considered more valuable and Simmons wasn't considered to be needed even though he had a 3 year contract.

We have a solid special teams unit without Lockett and Arrington. After all, Lockett was brought in when Slater was out to replace his reps. We certainly don't need lots of reps from both Lockett and Arrington. I guess the question is who Arrington would replace on the various special team's units. But my suspicion is Arrington being on the 53 has more to do with his future prospects as a corner than as a 2009 special teamer.

You compared Simmons to McGowan but other than a superficial glance, there situations are quite different. McGowan was all ready for camp, while Simmons was signed just before the first game and was not really ready.
Everyone seems to always think when a player is cut that it's a negative.."he's playing bad" "he's not in the future" blah blah blah It might have been a numbers game and having a 10th lineman is a luxury..and obviously when there is a roster with a handful injured there is little wiggle room. Who is to say in the future they will not sign him??
Simmons is not a special teams player so comparing him to Lockett or Arrington doesn't make it.


I think it's obvious without Green Brace should get some playing time..if he's active but a DNP then what does that say? Pryor played some..not early on...I would agree Wheatly is in a similar position.

 

[mgteich]

Since Wheatley has zero reps and is always inactive, I don't think it presumptuous that Wheatley should expect competition from a corner that the team has signed to the 53-man squad.

Bit presumptuous, eh?

 

[Pats726]

Of course it is a negative for a player when he is cut, unless he is cut early in the preseaon in order to allow him to find work elsewhere.

I agree that it is a numbers game with Simmons, but it is also a talent game. He couldn't beat out Connolly or Ohrnberger and he isn't good enough to warrant keeping as a 10th OL. It is about now and about the future. Connolly and Ohrnberger were considered more valuable and Simmons wasn't considered to be needed even though he had a 3 year contract.

We have a solid special teams unit without Lockett and Arrington. After all, Lockett was brought in when Slater was out to replace his reps. We certainly don't need lots of reps from both Lockett and Arrington. I guess the question is who Arrington would replace on the various special team's units. But my suspicion is Arrington being on the 53 has more to do with his future prospects as a corner than as a 2009 special teamer.

I think you missed my point about what I was saying... I will try again another way. I think too many times people see a negative when a player is cut when it could be just a numbers game..maybe the lesser positives than other players for the now as you said.
Connolly has been used in the backfield and used in other situations so he has a wider use than just a lineman. Ohrenberger is a rookie. I don't think it always comes down to "beating out a player"..but looking for the future and also whether if a player was cut how quickly they would be picked up. As I said before keeping a 10th offensive lineman is a luxury especially with so many injuries. When another player is deemed to be needed, obviously the player that they have kept as a luxury would be the first to go. It might not be that that player is bad or that player is not wanted but just a managment of the roster over time with things happening.
The team might have a solid special teams, but for many who thought that Lockett would be cut the next week or inactive, he has found a place on the Patriot special teams. He was only inactive for one week, the Baltimore game. Not needing him on special teams might be your view, but I tend to think CoachB feels differently. It might be true that Arrington is on the roster for the future or from having another team take him (I mentioned those two as possible multiple reasons in a post earlier) but it also could be they wish to have more speed on the field for defending Ginn. Time will tell.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think you missed my point about what I was saying... I will try again another way. I think too many times people see a negative when a player is cut when it could be just a numbers game..maybe the lesser positives than other players for the now as you said.
Connolly has been used in the backfield and used in other situations so he has a wider use than just a lineman. Ohrenberger is a rookie. I don't think it always comes down to "beating out a player"..but looking for the future and also whether if a player was cut how quickly they would be picked up. As I said before keeping a 10th offensive lineman is a luxury especially with so many injuries. When another player is deemed to be needed, obviously the player that they have kept as a luxury would be the first to go. It might not be that that player is bad or that player is not wanted but just a managment of the roster over time with things happening.
The team might have a solid special teams, but for many who thought that Lockett would be cut the next week or inactive, he has found a place on the Patriot special teams. He was only inactive for one week, the Baltimore game. Not needing him on special teams might be your view, but I tend to think CoachB feels differently. It might be true that Arrington is on the roster for the future or from having another team take him (I mentioned those two as possible multiple reasons in a post earlier) but it also could be they wish to have more speed on the field for defending Ginn. Time will tell.

A 30 year old, former first round pick, just lost his job. He was beaten out by a round rookie and an undrafted stiff that couldn't make it on the Jacksonville line. The only 'positive' here, assuming it's not a wink/nod cut, is that it's positive Simmons' career is in trouble.