Rohan Davey?

[NEM]

Damon Huard is in his last year of his contract, and,, if not given any playing time, will probably go out and sign with another team after this season.

Therefore, that leaves the Pats with Rohan Davey as the backup.

My question is this, with this being the case, what is your opinion of Davey and, should the Pats give him a lot more playing time in the pre season,and , if Brady should get hurt during the season, would you bring in Davey, rather than Huard, in regular season game situations.

Or, should the Pats begin a search for another QB to be the backup?

Personally, i like Damon Huard. I think he can play the game. But, he is the victim of being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and I just can't see him staying with the Pats after this season.

That being the case, is it time to let Davey play more?

This is, IMO, something the Pats have got to think very seriously about, becasue QB's do get hurt. Brady has been lucky, thus far, but a situation could develop during the upcoming season and the Pats need to know where they are as far as QB development,beyond Brady.

[pookie]

Originally posted by NEM
Damon Huard is in his last year of his contract, and,, if not given any playing time, will probably go out and sign with another team after this season.

Therefore, that leaves the Pats with Rohan Davey as the backup.

My question is this, with this being the case, what is your opinion of Davey and, should the Pats give him a lot more playing time in the pre season,and , if Brady should get hurt during the season, would you bring in Davey, rather than Huard, in regular season game situations.

Or, should the Pats begin a search for another QB to be the backup?

Personally, i like Damon Huard. I think he can play the game. But, he is the victim of being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and I just can't see him staying with the Pats after this season.

That being the case, is it time to let Davey play more?

This is, IMO, something the Pats have got to think very seriously about, becasue QB's do get hurt. Brady has been lucky, thus far, but a situation could develop during the upcoming season and the Pats need to know where they are as far as QB development,beyond Brady.

Dante Culpepper, he isn't..... Davey was pretty good at LSU but his lower body is injury prone and pretty much a mess. I'd be surprised to see him make it through camp again.

What will it cost to keep Huard around after next season? Is that a feasible option? I agree, though, Huard is a capable backup.

[patsfan]

I don't see Huard going anywhere. He is a backup and will be no matter where he goes. He's 30 now and only has a few years left in the tank.

[freak]

They also signed Shane Stafford, who played in the Arena League, and will be in NFLE this spring.

In the AL, he passed for 2164 yards, on 63% passing. He had a rating of 112.9, and had 39 touchdowns to only 7 INTs (5.57/1 ratio).

Has good size at 6-3, 220#.

Seems to have gotten more accurate....a necessity in the AL. He completed 55% of his passes at UConn, for 8975 yards, 73 TDs to 29 INTs (2.52/1 ratio).

Given Huard's cap hit of $800k, it is not unreasonable to assume he could be let go, if not likely.

Stafford could be a guy they try to stick on the PS for '03, and then battle Davey for the backup job in '04.

[NEM]

I think Huard is capable of being much more than a backup. he did well in his few starts with the dolphins and then became a victim of a coaching favoritism decision.

With the Pats he has been a victim of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, with Brady's escalation to the starting spot, and his success in 2001.

Huard, I believe, does not like being a backup that never gets a chance to play. I believe he will test the waters, be signed somewhere else, and.... I believe he will do very, very well.

[Spirit of 76]

I agree with your assessment of Huard, NEM. I too believe that Huard could be a winning QB as a starter. That is one of the reasons that I would like to see him stay here. It is also one of the reasons that he may not. He has not taken a beaten and is literally as fresh as can be. Chicago would have been better off with him for one. I hope that I am right in feeling that BB and CW do value the backup QB slot enough to pay a vet the right amount of money to keep him. I don't have confidence that Huard will settle for backup much longer though.

[Peg]

Interesting thoughts on all counts...
From my perspective, I was really pleased with what I saw of our QB corps when I went to Training Camp last year...
In the morning drills, I was impressed with the efficiency and accuracy of all three guys. In the afternoon, when they were doing some quasi-scrimmaging, I was most impressed with Huard--especially in the two-minute drill. He moved the offense down the field very quickly and smoothly. He not only knows the offense really well, but he has poise, to boot. Personally, I think that he is probably one of the better back-up QBs in the league right now.
I believe that Davey has a lot of raw talent, but it remains to be seen if he develops the "poise factor" in game situations... Given that, I would hope that we keep Huard on board, because if Brady went down, Huard would be more than competent to step in. And QBs DO go down... We've actually been pretty fortunate on this front, so my gut tells me that our luck may be running out there... Until either Davey or Stafford shows that they could step in and not miss a beat, then I say keep Huard here.
Freak: you mentioned that it would be an $800K cap hit to keep Huard. How does this compare to other (comparable) back-up QBs? If it is the "going price" then it is a no-brainer to keep Huard. Even if it is slighter higher than the average, it could still be argued that it is worth it.
Here's a really wild and crazy idea: That competition in Training Camp should decide who starts... Mind you, this is coming from a staunch Brady supporter... But, I honestly think that competition for starting positions is good for the TEAM and perhaps Bledsoe would not have gotten so apathetic and lackluster if he had had to compete for his job each year... Just a thought...
Go Pats in 2003!

Originally posted by Peg
Freak: you mentioned that it would be an $800K cap hit to keep Huard. ....Even if it is slighter higher than the average, it could still be argued that it is worth it. Here's a really wild and crazy idea: That competition in Training Camp should decide who starts...

Peg, Glad you've decided to return to this right-leaning political hotbed of Patriots football.

As a general comment regarding Huard: He isn't going anywhere because he isn't a free agent. Period. That's just like the rumors at Patriots.com about whether the Pats could keep Kevin Faulk. Huard would have to request a trade and the Pats would have to grant it. This from a player who has shown no inclination of being anything but happy as a back up?

To address the question of whether the Pats would release him:

He is making $800k/year -- if in fact he is making that -- that is $50k over the Veteran's Minimum of $750,000 per year. They can't pay anyone much less. That is called a GREAT value for a good backup with the attitude to be a backup. Man, you would think you people were snake-bitten by some back-up/starter QB controversy....

I expect that there will be competition not only for the starter and back up roles but also the third and possibly fourth positions. You may remember up until last year the Pats carried four QB's. I think Brady will be pressured and I think Rohan is being given some competition as well. I can even see them draft a QB in a late round. BB will have someone in there to push everyone.

Personally, I don't think anyone aside from Vinatieri played well enough to ASSUME that they have their old jobs back. (That's a sad state of affairs when our kicker is head-and-shoulders our best performer on the team. ) Who else stepped up last season week in and out? (And before you mention any "linebackers" (Peg) or the defense in general might I just add Priest Holmes, Ricky Williams, LaDainian Tomlinson, Ahman Green, Charlie Garner and Travis Henry to that remark. My apologies if I left anyone out who also RAN OVER us last year like a jail break.)

I like Brady, although he didn't really shine last year. He also didn't get much help from anywhere. Who did we use to say that about?

[Peg]

Hey, NR--
Thanks for the welcome back... I have been away at a leadership symposium in the White Mountains and am just getting back and tryin' to catch up on the posts since I left about a week ago... (And btw, I am going to TRY and avoid ALL political talk in the future, as I just think that it is a lose-lose situation...)
To clarify: I know that Huard is still under contract and is not a Free Agent, yet. I believe that someone in this thread pointed out that he would be at the conclusion of his current contract at the end of the 2003/2004 season. It was upon this premise that I was basing my opinion and comments.
Thanks for the info re: the veteran minimum... (I've really gotta learn more about the financial side of things...) Personally, I was NOT trying to create some sort of QB controversy here. I just believe that competition for ANY starting position can be healthy for the TEAM... I know that we have carried four QBs on the roster in previous years, but I think that is a bit of overkill, myself. With the exception of Philly's season, I cannot remember a time when a team went all the way down to their third QB to start the game. (It has probably happened, but I just don't recall it happening...)
I think carrying four QBs on the roster is a bit of overkill. It is different if someone is a Tom Tupa-type that can fulfill another role, however.
As far as competition for a starting role, I believe that is good for EVERY position, including Vinatieri and my beloved Ted Johnson... Although I believe that Adam is the BEST kicker in the game right now, it was kinda fun to see a couple of guys keep him on his toes in training camp last summer... It is a healthy competitive situation and everyone benefits from it, as it brings out the best in the players. I have no problem with T.J. having to compete for his job at LB. In fact, I think that it brings out the best in my romance-novel-loving man, as well as anyone... If there is a "draw", however, then I think that it should "go to" the veteran player. My reasoning is this: Organizations need to play for the "now" and not as much for the "future", as one could put a lot of time and money into "developing" a young player, only to have him leave to go to another team in a short period of time. This is the saddest repercussion to "parity" and the whole salary-cap/free agency thing...
Well, thanks again for the welcome back... Hope all is well with you.
p.s.--That WAS a pretty pervasive rumor regarding Kevin Faulk being a FA, wasn't it? I even thought that his good friend, "Cotterpin", had stated as much... That is why I took it as fact...

Peg,

I wasn't directing my comments to you, I apologize if you thought that was the case.

I was really making a general comment on the subject of Huard as there seems to be a misconception about how NFL contracts work in general and free agency in particular. I was just attempting to do a little rumor control. Generally, if a player is not an Unrestricted Free Agent, has a salary commensurate with their value, they can play and they are not a target for cap reduction they are not going anywhere.

Glad to have you back. I am trying to stay out of the political arena as well. I would rather talk about the draft, or camp or free agency or just about anything -- bass fishing for example.

[Peg]

Points well taken, NR...
Questions for you:
~What do you think of Huard? I like him a lot...
~Who do you think that we should draft in the first round? I think: Defense for sure!
~Are you going to the Pats' Draft Day party? I plan to! Missed it last year and regretted it...
~Who do you think that we should sign in FA? I am thinking that getting Maz from KC would be a coup, as I don't believe that BB will draft a LB. (Historically speaking, that is...) Besides, he was ready to sign on with us last year, but KC matched our offer sheet and kept him... I think that he would like to wear a Pats uni and would fit into BB's philosophy.
~Did you know that Training Camp is gonna be at Gillette Stadium this year, rather than at Bryant College in RI? (That is a little closer to home, so I am pleased by this development...)
~Regarding bass fishin'--I am ashamed to say that I have not drilled a single hole in the ice this winter... It has been too damned cold for one thing and the other is that I am not living at my cottage on the lake this winter... I am residing with "SisterOfPeg" this winter and it has been fun, but now that "cabin fever" is setting in, it has become umm, err, interesting...
There: I believe that I touched upon every subject matter that you mentioned, other than the dreaded politics topic... So, what say ye?!

[freak]

NoRespect,

Huard is not being paid just $50,000 over the vet minimum.

According to Miguel's website, and the NFL Player's association website, Huard's salary for 2003 is......

$625,000

The vet minimum is not $750k. I think you are getting this confused with the veteran's exception, which allows qualified veteran's to be paid $750k, but only the vet minimum will be counted against the cap. As I recall, the minimum was $450k last year.

Huard's CAP HIT is $800k.

To answer Peg's question, that is not a huge cap hit for Huard. But he WILL be a free agent following 2003, and he most likely will not want to play for such a small salary again.

As I said, I think the QB situation is the same for 2003, with the Pats trying to tuck Stafford away on the practice squad. He'd be like insurance if Huard walks in the offseason.

Or, the Pats could very well carry 4 QBs. They did just that in 2000.

Originally posted by freak
NoRespect, According to Miguel's website, and the NFL Player's association website, Huard's salary for 2003 is......

$625,000

The vet minimum is not $750k. I think you are getting this confused with the veteran's exception, which allows qualified veteran's to be paid $750k, but only the vet minimum will be counted against the cap. As I recall, the minimum was $450k last year.

Huard's CAP HIT is $800k.

freak,

Thanks for your help. I searched for information on the veteran minimum and all I could find was the reference to $750,000/yr so I went with it. I did some further checking and was able to track down the correct information. (It turns out that $750k was the vet min. for a 10+ year veteran in 2002.)

Interestingly enough, $525k was the veteran minimum for a six year vet in 2002 (Huard enters his 7th season), which means using freak's/Miguel's numbers he was paid $100k over the veteran minimum. (The remainder of his $800k cap hit must be a combination of incentives and pro-rated signing bonus.)

Huard's minimum this year (per the Collective Bargaining Agreement) would be $655,000.

In other words as a seven-year vet he is slightly underpaid this season based on current league agreements. If his contract was written prior to the extension it likely does not conform to the CBA extension. (Although the contract could be written to not be less than the league minimum.)

One thing that I learned from this process was how much more expensive it is to have a veteran team than a younger team. The CBA builds the increases into the contracts of every player and they increase by year. Ten 4-year vets cost roughly $800k more than ten 3-year players in 2003. Ten 10-year vets would cost over $3M more.

The more you get into it the more you realize that when this many lawyers get around this much money nothing is simple. Did anyone know that in 2007 there is no cap? As part of the agreement? That should be interesting.

[freak]

If Huard's contract is less than the minimum, it will be automatically be increased to conform. That's in the CBA.

Yes, that is not unusual about '07 being the final capped year. When the CBA was extended a year or two back, they were coming up on the same issue. Regardless, the model has been shown to work, and work well. I don't think the cap is in any danger of disappearing from the NFL. Now if only they'd stick one in baseball.

Originally posted by freak
If Huard's contract is less than the minimum, it will be automatically be increased to conform. That's in the CBA.

Yes, that is not unusual about '07 being the final capped year. When the CBA was extended a year or two back, they were coming up on the same issue. Regardless, the model has been shown to work, and work well. I don't think the cap is in any danger of disappearing from the NFL. Now if only they'd stick one in baseball.

Well, I'm not surprised that the agreement expires in '07, just that as part of the agreement they uncapped the final year of the agreement. In other words the Collective Bargaining Agreement is extended through 2007 ( in effect through that year) but there is no cap in the final year.

I'm not sure of the politics involved but that strikes me as a little odd. They are agreeing to no cap -- not merely having the agreement expire on the assumption that a new one will be negotiated. This way -- even assuming the likelihood that a new agreement is struck -- 2007 remains uncapped. I suppose it is possible to amend the agreement and change the requirements for 2007 but why write it that way unless it is some sort of concession to the players association. 2007 becomes a free-for-all -- by intent.

As for the CBA requiring all new contracts to conform, I had wondered about tha possibility. Individual contracts can be written to require conformity with future agreements and vice versa. Someone needs to tell Miguel that his numbers are off for all contracts written before the agreement was ratified.