Revs 2016 Roster, Thread III

Discussion in 'New England Revolution' started by patfan1, Apr 12, 2016.

  1. NFLPatriot

    NFLPatriot Member+

    Jun 25, 2002
    Foxboro, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What you say makes sense, but we are talking about a team that protected Kevin Alston over Patrick Mullins...

    We will find out in the next month. If the Revs get eliminated from the playoffs, I would expect them to play Cropper in the final game of the season if they intend to keep him.
     
    ToMhIlL repped this.
  2. RevsLiverpool

    RevsLiverpool Member+

    Nov 12, 2005
    Boston
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh that's totally the case. Ties to both expansion cities, talented enough to be USMNT quality, they won't protect him.
     
  3. ToMhIlL

    ToMhIlL Member+

    Feb 18, 1999
    Boxborough, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    See, that's why people say that Burns is 4-5 steps ahead of everyone else. No other GM in the league would make a move like that, I guarantee it!
     
    firstshirt repped this.
  4. rkupp

    rkupp Member+

    Jan 3, 2001
    I agree, but I can't shake the suspicion that there was some kind of deal that allowed the Revs to discover him. Otherwise, he certainly seems like a guy who has a lot of upside that they'd want to keep - or if they don't like something they see in training, then at least get a decent deal for him.
    Yes, they made a blunder with Mullins and, long ago, another with Francis Okaroh, but in the history of expansion drafts I'm sure just about every team has a couple of embarrassments. I doubt their overall track record with expansion drafts is too bad.
     
  5. NFLPatriot

    NFLPatriot Member+

    Jun 25, 2002
    Foxboro, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This has nothing to do with their overall track record. firstshirt said it made sense to protect the younger keeper and expose the older ones. I just pointed out a case where the Revs didn't follow that philosophy, so even if it "makes sense" it doesn't mean the Revs will do it. Doesn't mean they won't either.
     
  6. firstshirt

    firstshirt Member+

    Bayern München
    United States
    Mar 1, 2000
    Ellington, CT / NK, RI
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    if they intend on exposing him they play him just so the two new teams can see him
     
  7. rkupp

    rkupp Member+

    Jan 3, 2001
    That brings up an interesting point. If they want to try to slide him through the draft without protecting him, they probably wouldn't want to play him (and provide a scouting report). OTOH, if they are interested in trading him, they would want to showcase him. If they want to keep him, it doesn't matter much either way.
     
  8. ToMhIlL

    ToMhIlL Member+

    Feb 18, 1999
    Boxborough, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If they want to keep him, they should protect him and expose both Shuttleworth and Knighton. If one of them gets taken then they have their 2 keepers and everyone else they want to hang on to.

    Simple, innit?
     
  9. patfan1

    patfan1 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 19, 1999
    Nashua, NH
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  10. NFLPatriot

    NFLPatriot Member+

    Jun 25, 2002
    Foxboro, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  11. RevsLiverpool

    RevsLiverpool Member+

    Nov 12, 2005
    Boston
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

Share This Page