The Official Patriots vs. Bills Post-Game Thread

[Deus Irae]

Cut the following players under contract for the 2014 NFL Season:

Kelly, Tommy

Why would you cut Kelly?

 

[SVN]

Was flying across the pacific ,most of the time wondering anxiously what happened to the pats. Finally online - cant be more proud of this team. 2nd seed with all that has happened. Amazing.
Looking at the other results. I think SD could make some noise in the playoffs.

 

[ATippett56]

Why would you cut Kelly?

$2.5 million cap savings.

Aside from Wilfork, it's time to cut loose the over 30 club on defense based upon a March 1, 2014 calendar date.

 

[Deus Irae]

$2.5 million cap savings.

Aside from Wilfork, it's time to cut loose the over 30 club on defense based upon a March 1, 2014 calendar date.

Your Calendar date reasoning makes no absolutely no sense at all, being completely arbitrary, so I don't know where you came up with it, and there's no real sense in talking about it. That being the case, on to Kelly's money.

According to Jason (Miguel's pages aren't coming up for me at the moment), cutting Kelly only gets $500,000 in dead money, because the rest of his money is based upon future play. Your "$2.5 million cap savings" doesn't exist, because you still have to pay someone to play the position.

If you keep Kelly, he's only got a $50k workout bonus, making him a painless offseason cut if he can't earn his job. If he makes the team, that's when the money kicks in ($500k roster bonus + guaranteed salary for veteran) but, if he makes the team, the money doesn't really matter much, because he's not exactly breaking the bank. Besides, if it looks like he might make the team, but he's not dominating to the point where a pay cut, or contract restructure, would be insulting, the team can also try negotiating a contract change.

 

[supafly]

Why would you cut Kelly?

$2.5 million cap savings.

Aside from Wilfork, it's time to cut loose the over 30 club on defense based upon a March 1, 2014 calendar date.

Yeah, that will be an interesting situation to keep track of moving forward.

There's always the possibility of an extension to restructure things, but on his current 2 yr deal Tommy Kelly is probably a good candidate to be cut, at least according to several articles from local beat writers that came out the week of being placed on IR. I had linked one/two of those articles in the past, but unfortunately I must not be entering the right search criteria as I can't find them at the moment.

Either way it seems as though he'll either be extended another year or two or be released, but he almost definitely won't be staying on his current pact.

 

[ATippett56]

Your Calendar date reasoning makes no absolutely no sense at all, being completely arbitrary and useless, so I don't know where you came up with it, and there's no real sense in talking about it.

Player's age based upon the earliest the 2014 NFL League Year would commence.

Cutting Kelly only gets $500,000 in dead money, because the rest of his money is based upon future play. Your "$2.5 million cap savings" doesn't exist, because you still have to pay someone to play the position.

If you keep Kelly, he's only got a $50k workout bonus. If he makes the team, that's when the money kicks in ($500k roster bonus + guaranteed salary for veteran) but, if he makes that team, the money doesn't matter.

It's called the NFL Draft and the New England Patriots would already have earmarked at least $2 million in salary cap differential to pay the 2014 NFL Draft selections.

 

[supafly]

Cutting Kelly only gets $500,000 in dead money, because the rest of his money is based upon future play. Your "$2.5 million cap savings" doesn't exist, because you still have to pay someone to play the position.

That's a reasonable point, Deus.

I sure wish that I could find one of those articles, as the wording was written as though they could "recover all but 500k" of the money by cutting him. It's quite possible that you're saying the exact same thing. Contractual issues are certainly not my strong point.

It does make sense to assume the new cost of another player though, so that's an excellent point that you make there.

 

[supafly]

Was flying across the pacific ,most of the time wondering anxiously what happened to the pats. Finally online - cant be more proud of this team. 2nd seed with all that has happened. Amazing.
Looking at the other results. I think SD could make some noise in the playoffs.

SD could knock off the Bengals possibly, that's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Of course if they did they'd automatically go to DEN for a rematch with Manning at Mile high.

 

[Deus Irae]

Player's age based upon the earliest the 2014 NFL League Year would commence.

I know what you wrote. It's an arbitrary number that makes no sense to utilize, which is why it's not worth talking about. It's asinine to cut players just because of age.

It's called the NFL Draft and the New England Patriots would already have earmarked at least $2 million in salary cap differential to pay the 2014 NFL Draft selections.

No, it's called fielding a team.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's a reasonable point, Deus.

I sure wish that I could find one of those articles, as the wording was written as though they could "recover all but 500k" of the money by cutting him. It's quite possible that you're saying the exact same thing. Contractual issues are certainly not my strong point.

It does make sense to assume the new cost of another player though, so that's an excellent point.

Here's Jason's 2014 page:

» Over the Cap- New England Patriots 2014 Salary Cap and Contracts

According to Jason, there's a $500k charge on the books (which makes sense given the $1m signing bonus).

According to Jason, there's a $50k workout bonus. That's essentially nothing.

According to Jason, there's a $500k roster bonus and a $1.95m base salary. That's where the $2.5m is coming from. The thing about that, though, is that it doesn't kick in until the roster's formed (roster bonus) and the first game's played (salary guaranteed).

That gives the Patriots the chance to watch Kelly in the offseason, all the way up to final cuts, for just $50k.

 

[SVN]

SD could knock off the Bengals possibly, that's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Of course if they did they'd automatically go to DEN for a rematch with Manning at Mile high.

Unfortunately hard to pick SDon the road in the cold vs bengals who play great at home.

 

[ATippett56]

Yeah, that will be an interesting situation to keep track of moving forward.

There's always the possibility of an extension to restructure things, but on his current 2 yr deal Tommy Kelly is probably a good candidate to be cut, at least according to several articles from local beat writers that came out the week of being placed on IR. I had linked one/two of those articles in the past, but unfortunately I must not be entering the right search criteria as I can't find them at the moment.

Either way it seems as though he'll either be extended another year or two or be released, but he almost definitely won't be staying on his current pact.

Look at it from this perspective, in the last two years the New England Patriots have drafted the following:

3 defensive ends
3 linebackers
3 safeties
2 cornerbacks

The defensive tackle position needs to be replenished via the NFL Draft.

 

[ATippett56]

No, it's called fielding a team.

The New England Patriots already have six defensive tackles under contract for the 2014 NFL Season:

Wilfork, Vince
Siliga, Sealver
Jones, Chris
Vellano, Joe
Armstead, Armond
Grissom, Cory

That does not take into account signing Marcus Forston to a futures contract.

 

[Deus Irae]

The New England Patriots already have six defensive tackles under contract for the 2014 NFL Season:

Wilfork, Vince
Siliga, Sealver
Jones, Chris
Vellano, Joe
Armstead, Armond
Grissom, Cory

That does not take into account signing Marcus Forston to a futures contract.

Let me try again, hoping that, somehow, the point gets through to you. According to Jason:


He will only cost $50k to keep in camp. In the offseason, rosters are larger, and the rule of 51 means more money can be kept than will end up on the roster.

Also, Vellano/Armstead/Grissom/Forston.... get real.

 

[ATippett56]

Let me try again, hoping that, somehow, the point gets through to you. According to Jason:

He will only cost $50k to keep in camp.

Not exactly. You forgot about the $500,000 roster bonus which is typically paid out before June 1.

Also, Vellano/Armstead/Grissom.... get real.

You don't have a clue whatsoever about Armstead's potential.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not exactly. You forgot about the $500,000 roster bonus which is typically paid out before June 1.

You have until the day the roster bonus is due. He's only $50k in workout bonuses until then, and roster bonuses are parts of contracts that can be renegotiated. Come on. You're smarter than this.

You don't have a clue whatsoever about Armstead's potential.

His potential is meaningless, since he hasn't set foot on the field. When you're fielding 80+ players instead of 50+ players, you have a lot more room to look at players. I don't understand why you're ignoring that, other than you just not thinking before posting.

 

[supafly]

The defensive tackle position needs to be replenished via the NFL Draft.

I'm certainly with you there. I think a lot of us are.

I'm all for some higher round picks being used to shore up the trenches on both sides of the ball, OL/DL (DT specifically).

I would also be quite tempted to jump on another secondary pick in the top 3 rounds too, although I'm not sure whether CB/S would be more appropriate, and I don't think we'll know that until after free agency.

DL/OL
CB/S
BPA--with an eye being kept on TE and even LB

That would be my ideal scenario, although I'd also be quite tempted to trade down again to accumulate an additional higher round pick if a player didn't completely blow me away in the first round too.

 

[ATippett56]

His potential is meaningless, since he hasn't set foot on the field. When you're fielding 80+ players instead of 50+ players, you have a lot more room to look at players. I don't understand why you're ignoring that, other than you just not thinking before posting.

While you are ignoring the option of the New England Patriots drafting defensive tackle(s) and signing collegiate UDFA's.

 

[ATippett56]

I'm certainly with you there. I think a lot of us are.

I'm all for some higher round picks being used to shore up the trenches on both sides of the ball, OL/DL (DT specifically).

I would also be quite tempted to jump on another secondary pick in the top 3 rounds too, although I'm not sure whether CB/S would be more appropriate, and I don't think we'll know that until after free agency.

DL/OL
CB/S
BPA--with an eye being kept on TE and even LB

That would be my ideal scenario, although I'd also be quite tempted to trade down again to accumulate an additional higher round pick if a player didn't completely blow me away in the first round too.

1. Center
2. Defensive Tackle
3. Tight End
4. Depends on roster cuts and unrestricted free agency.

 

[Deus Irae]

While you are ignoring the option of the New England Patriots drafting defensive tackle(s) and signing collegiate UDFA's.

I'm not ignoring that, at all. I've got S/DT/OC/ORG as the team's top target areas, with TE and LB behind that. Questioning the early cutting of Kelly isn't the same as ignoring a need.