Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Cuts

Expand Messages
  • George
    It had to be tough for the Patriots to cut Billy Yates. He s been with the team since 2004, always providing a dependable, hard-working backup at G and even C.
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 4, 2009
      Clear Day

      It had to be tough for the Patriots to cut Billy Yates. He's been with the team since 2004, always providing a dependable, hard-working backup at G and even C. But he is just that, a career backup, with no upside or starting potential on a good team. When the team can fill those positions with young guys whom they believe have such an upside, guys like Yates just have to go. My guess is that he'll be picked up quickly by a team that's got a weak OL; and may even end up as a starter on such a team. Did I hear somebody mention the Kansas City Chiefs? :-)

      The Walter cut surprised me. I agreed with the evaluation expressed by several others that he's a guy with talent, who was stuck on a team with a lousy OL (another possible home for Yates), and little other talent around him. My guess, and that's all it is, is that he had more trouble picking up the offense than BB wanted to see. I say that because it's the only reason I can think of why BB wouldn't have had him play more in the last two games. There had to be something shown, or not shown, in practice that led to this decision.

      So, what to do at QB? I favor taking the shot with Hoyer and Edelman; unless they can swing a trade for a solid vet like Feely for a player they plan to drop, like Alex Smith (a huge disappointment for me, by the way). Why would Philly trade for a guy that we figure to drop? Well, they're pretty low on the waiver priority list; and, IMO, there are a number of teams out there that look pretty weak at TE. Check out this list of "Who's are they" guys for example: BUF has Schouman and Fine; CAR Barridge and Rosario; CIN Coats (NOT Ben!) and Coffman; KC Cottam and Ryan. And that's just the teams with two "weak" TEs. Several others could use a better #2 guy. So it's likely that Smith, despite his bad showing here, would be snapped up long before the Eagles claim would come up.

      We'll know soon enough. The rest of our cuts have to be made today. It's trade him or drop him for Smith. ... OR, do they trade the more valuable Watson, and keep Smith as #3? Depends, I suppose, on what they're offered in return. I wouldn't think that Feely for Watson, straight up, would be a 'go' for BB. But, who knows? Definitely not I!! :-)

      As to why I'm happy with Hoyer and Edelman, I do like what I've seen of Hoyer, despite his inexperience. We all know that there are teams STARTING rookie QBs every season, including this one. We also know that there are QBs who come from "no where", and become great when the #1 goes down with injury. (Can you think of one who fits that scenario?) So what's the big problem with going with a rookie who has looked good in camp as the #2? Edelman, while he's never taken a snap in camp (as far as we know), was a QB in college, and definitely has shown value as both a Welker backup and a STs player. Having him as the #2 QB on game days saves a roster spot for another active player. Should the unthinkable happen, we all know the team would be in trouble with any other QB in there. So Edelman finishing out a game, and Hoyer taking over the next week, if necessary, is not much worse, IMO, than putting any other QB who's available out there. Memories of 2001 should make us all aware that miracles can happen when such a challenge arises in the NFL!

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.