Pastabelly thinks Patten will get axe

You're comparing different positions, we don't have nearly the depth at DE that we do at WR, making Wynn more valuable, plus he can play DT which increases his value.

If we're going to run the one-back, 3-WR set a lot, I'd say we're just as deep at WR as we are at DE.

You need a decent 4th WR if you're going to run 3 WR sets all the time. Do you really want Taylor Jacobs or old man Thrash out there again? We've seen what they do, they don't work.

Money's not an issue right now, it just comes down to whether or not there's an O-lineman out there who we'd be better off with instead of Patten. Patten can at least still threaten a defense with his speed. Chances of being a June 1 cut are almost nill, and I'd be pissed if we dumped him without signing someone else that brings value.

To me, I'd rather have "old man" (younger than Patten) Thrash as the 4th wideout since he's also a special teams demon. Patten could be a huge waste sitting there as the #4 guy.

how can quality depth ever be considered a waste? what else are we going to do with the money? cut him loose and just sit on it?

he hasn't asked to be cut, so he should stay. I rather keep WRs that can actually play WR if the need ever arises. we'll keep at least 5, so thrash can stay too, but i NEVER want to see jacobs or farris on the field in an actual competitive game ever again.

Who would you rather cut?

jacobs, some crappy rookie camp scrub that can be put on the PS instead. if we're keeping 5 WRs, its pretty easy to see who they'd be. if we're only keeping 4, i rather have patten than thrash (even though i like thrash, the question of who could actually help your team if they needed to sub in is pretty easy to answer).

how can quality depth ever be considered a waste? what else are we going to do with the money? cut him loose and just sit on it?

he hasn't asked to be cut, so he should stay. I rather keep WRs that can actually play WR if the need ever arises. we'll keep at least 5, so thrash can stay too, but i NEVER want to see jacobs or farris on the field in an actual competitive game ever again.

There's nothing wrong with quality depth, but how far down the depth chart can you go with that quality? I'd argue you don't want your #4 or #5 WR to be making the kind of money that Patten is making.

I'm not advocating cutting Patten come June 1 for the simple reason of how much he makes, but if there is a surprise cut from another team I can certainly understand the rationale behind letting him go in order to help our depth elsewhere where it's needed more.

There's nothing wrong with quality depth, but how far down the depth chart can you go with that quality? I'd argue you don't want your #4 or #5 WR to be making the kind of money that Patten is making.

I'm not advocating cutting Patten come June 1 for the simple reason of how much he makes, but if there is a surprise cut from another team I can certainly understand the rationale behind letting him go in order to help our depth elsewhere where it's needed more.

OK, well can I ask you, what do you think the probability is that there will be a surprise cut who we can sign who would help us more than David Patten would?

jacobs, some crappy rookie camp scrub that can be put on the PS instead. if we're keeping 5 WRs, its pretty easy to see who they'd be. if we're only keeping 4, i rather have patten than thrash (even though i like thrash, the question of who could actually help your team if they needed to sub in is pretty easy to answer).

Exactly. You cut Taylor Jacobs, because he sucks way more than Patten does. Money is not an issue, you simply keep the best players.

OK, well can I ask you, what do you think the probability is that there will be a surprise cut who we can sign who would help us more than David Patten would?

Hey, you never know. Seems like each year there is someone that gets cut that raises some eyebrows.

I say we cut Patten and use his $1M+ base salary (and some other cap room that we apparently still have) and sign one of quality LBs remaining - a Chris Claiborne or Tommy Polley.

Hey, you never know. Seems like each year there is someone that gets cut that raises some eyebrows.

Suffice it to say the chances are pretty low, because the only real area of need for us is along the O-Line. And in addition, I think Gibbs is happier with his offensive line depth than we are. I'll agree with you though, if a player comes along who can help at the O-line spot, and is a big enough upgrade over the backups we have, then I think it makes sense to shed Patten and grab him instead.

But for Pastabelly to come out and call David Patten a probable cut, I don't think that's accurate. I'd say it's possible, but definitely not probable. More like snowball's chance, IMO.