Boldin instead of Edelman

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BILLB50. Show BILLB50's posts

    Boldin instead of Edelman

    He would be a better red zone threat. I think he would be worth it.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    Can we get Crabtree instead of both?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    I just still want Emmanuel Sanders...

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman


    I'd rather have Edelman. But if we can work Boldin in too, be ok with me

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WazzuWheatfarmer. Show WazzuWheatfarmer's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    We have 2 future stars already in Mark Harrison and TJ Moe.   :)

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    Edelman is not the weak link

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman


    If presented with that option I think I would take Boldin.

    I would take the leap of faith in Amendola next year.

    The "window" is closing and a vet like Boldin comes to play when needed most, playoffs.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    Nah, our WR corps is good enough.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BILLB50. Show BILLB50's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:


    If presented with that option I think I would take Boldin.

    I would take the leap of faith in Amendola next year.

    The "window" is closing and a vet like Boldin comes to play when needed most, playoffs.



    He didn't this year. I mean, so many whined about Branch. Also, Boldin never really did anything in the playoffs until last year.

     



    Against Seahawk,Boldin had 5 catches for 53 yds and 1 Td good game 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BILLB50. Show BILLB50's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to BILLB50's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:


    If presented with that option I think I would take Boldin.

    I would take the leap of faith in Amendola next year.

    The "window" is closing and a vet like Boldin comes to play when needed most, playoffs.



    He didn't this year. I mean, so many whined about Branch. Also, Boldin never really did anything in the playoffs until last year.

     



    Against Seahawk,Boldin had 5 catches for 53 yds and 1 Td good game 



    Decent. Certainly wasn't a difference maker, and he was worse vs a terrible GB D the week before.

    Not enough to say he's trending up.   At 34 next year as a WR, I'd only allow him in with the vet minimum.

    I just don't trust someone like him.  He's been about ago and money for years and happens to have a ring.

    Not a good choice unless a cap invite.



    He also had 8 catches and 136yds against Carolina,give him 3-4 million per yr. for 3 yrs.and 8 million bonus.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MileHighMike. Show MileHighMike's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    I think Boldin might be done. He'll be 34 at the start of the year.

    I'd rather flip a 4th rder to Atlanta and pick up the superior Roddy White. Or, a 3rd.

    Give White a 1 year extension through 2015 to control his cost a bit in 2014.

     

     



    No, idiot he'll be 33.    Not so good with Math (or English) huh?  Hmmm, let's see.... you were lauding the signing of Adian Wilson coming off his worst season as a pro and after being cut lose by the Cards, but you think Boldin, a full year younger coming off his best season in the last 6 years is a bad idea?  God, you are just such a complete idiot, it's painful to read (but fantastic to point out).

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MileHighMike. Show MileHighMike's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to MileHighMike's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

     

    I think Boldin might be done. He'll be 34 at the start of the year.

    I'd rather flip a 4th rder to Atlanta and pick up the superior Roddy White. Or, a 3rd.

    Give White a 1 year extension through 2015 to control his cost a bit in 2014.

     

     



    No, idiot he'll be 33.    Not so good with Math (or English) huh?  Hmmm, let's see.... you were lauding the signing of Adian Wilson coming off his worst season as a pro and after being cut lose by the Cards, but you think Boldin, a full year younger coming off his best season in the last 6 years is a bad idea?  God, you are just such a complete idiot, it's painful to read (but fantastic to point out).

     



    "cut lose"?

    The word is "loose". Like your mother.

    LOL!



    Bwhahahahahahahahaha! I love it!!  You just can't resist.  Over and over again.  I bait you into it.  You get bludgeoned on topics of football and all you can do is point out what you think are spelling mistakes.  What a loser.  Tell me again how Boldin will be 34 at the start of the season and is too old, but what a great signing Wilson was!  Bwhhahahaahahahahha!  BLUDGEONED!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    The WRs are fine, so long as they can get - and stay - healthy and the team signs Edelman for 3-4 years. What they need is a pass-catching TE to supplement Gronk.

    If 2013 showed us anything it is that a team needs depth if it wants to go far. Edelman was projected more or less as a backup to Amendola who got injured Week 1 and never really found his game again. In building a team it is dumb to put all your eggs in one basket, if you (over-)pay for one or few players it will hurt you down the line.

    The loss of both Hernandez and Gronk was too much in the end, as there was too big a drop off in production in the passing game from the TE position. 

    I really don't think they need a big overhaul on offense. Sign Edelman, sign Blount, draft a TE, draft a interior OL and they are good to go. With Dobson hopefully taking a "year two leap", Boyce returning to health and getting a full offseason, I see the current crop of receivers as set. Blount, Ridley, Vereen, Bolden are also good to go.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    The WRs are fine, so long as they can get - and stay - healthy and the team signs Edelman for 3-4 years. What they need is a pass-catching TE to supplement Gronk.

    If 2013 showed us anything it is that a team needs depth if it wants to go far. Edelman was projected more or less as a backup to Amendola who got injured Week 1 and never really found his game again. In building a team it is dumb to put all your eggs in one basket, if you (over-)pay for one or few players it will hurt you down the line.

    The loss of both Hernandez and Gronk was too much in the end, as there was too big a drop off in production in the passing game from the TE position. 

    I really don't think they need a big overhaul on offense. Sign Edelman, sign Blount, draft a TE, draft a interior OL and they are good to go. With Dobson hopefully taking a "year two leap", Boyce returning to health and getting a full offseason, I see the current crop of receivers as set. Blount, Ridley, Vereen, Bolden are also good to go.

     




    They need pass catchers who really challenge defenses vertically and in the redzone. Those guys coud be TEs or could be bigger, faster WRs or some combination of the two.  But my opinion is they need at least two guys that defenses are going to have to game plan around.  Edelman, Amendola, Collie are fine for what they are, but they should be complementary guys and not the main threats in the passing game.  Gronk is great, but he's unlikely to contribute much next year, and who knows now what his long-term future is. Mulligan and Hoomawanui are just filler types so we need a starting calibre TE.  At WR--other than the slots mentioned above--we've got Dobson, Thompkins, and Boyce.  The real question is whether any of those guys is more than a mediocre NFL player.  I'm not sure yet, but clearly none was more than mediocre this season.  I think bringing in one more receiver would be wise.  Boldin is fine if we think Dobson is the real deal.  If not, I'd prefer a younger guy who has more long-term potential than Boldin, though Boldin would be fine alongside that younger guy.  He certainly would help in the redzone.  

    We need to admit that our offense hasn't been able to compete against good teams when Gronk has been out.  Gronk is now a big question mark.  That means we need to build an offense that has enough quality weapons to compete without Gronk.  That's the challenge for this offseason, I think.

     

     

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    BB won't pay.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

     




    They need pass catchers who really challenge defenses vertically and in the redzone. Those guys coud be TEs or could be bigger, faster WRs or some combination of the two.  But my opinion is they need at least two guys that defenses are going to have to game plan around.  Edelman, Amendola, Collie are fine for what they are, but they should be complementary guys and not the main threats in the passing game.  Gronk is great, but he's unlikely to contribute much next year, and who knows now what his long-term future is. Mulligan and Hoomawanui are just filler types so we need a starting calibre TE.  At WR--other than the slots mentioned above--we've got Dobson, Thompkins, and Boyce.  The real question is whether any of those guys is more than a mediocre NFL player.  I'm not sure yet, but clearly none was more than mediocre this season.  I think bringing in one more receiver would be wise.  Boldin is fine if we think Dobson is the real deal.  If not, I'd prefer a younger guy who has more long-term potential than Boldin, though Boldin would be fine alongside that younger guy.  He certainly would help in the redzone.  

    We need to admit that our offense hasn't been able to compete against good teams when Gronk has been out.  Gronk is now a big question mark.  That means we need to build an offense that has enough quality weapons to compete without Gronk.  That's the challenge for this offseason, I think.

     

      




    I hear what you are saying, and maybe my glasses are too rosy...

    Loosing a player like Gronk will - and should - always make a difference, because he is as good as he is. There really is no way to just plug and play another player. Loose Gronk and you loose a lot of offensive firepower. With that said, yes, you need to plan for a scenario without Gronk, or a Gronk at less than 100 %. I agree completely that the need is for a starting TE, not another gap-filler. And don't get me wrong, I think Hooman and Mulligan played their *sses off, it's just not enough.

    I guess I'm trying to say that they need balance and flexibility from their skill players. Even if Fitzgerald ended up in NE, I don't think he would have a great season here if there aren't viable targets from the TE and RB position. The should have to worry about where Brady is going with it. And that wasn't the case for most of this season and in the postseason. And taking that premise a step further, I would say that a healthy Gronk (if we ever see that again) or another starting caliber pass catching TE will lift Dobson, Boyce.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

     




    They need pass catchers who really challenge defenses vertically and in the redzone. Those guys coud be TEs or could be bigger, faster WRs or some combination of the two.  But my opinion is they need at least two guys that defenses are going to have to game plan around.  Edelman, Amendola, Collie are fine for what they are, but they should be complementary guys and not the main threats in the passing game.  Gronk is great, but he's unlikely to contribute much next year, and who knows now what his long-term future is. Mulligan and Hoomawanui are just filler types so we need a starting calibre TE.  At WR--other than the slots mentioned above--we've got Dobson, Thompkins, and Boyce.  The real question is whether any of those guys is more than a mediocre NFL player.  I'm not sure yet, but clearly none was more than mediocre this season.  I think bringing in one more receiver would be wise.  Boldin is fine if we think Dobson is the real deal.  If not, I'd prefer a younger guy who has more long-term potential than Boldin, though Boldin would be fine alongside that younger guy.  He certainly would help in the redzone.  

    We need to admit that our offense hasn't been able to compete against good teams when Gronk has been out.  Gronk is now a big question mark.  That means we need to build an offense that has enough quality weapons to compete without Gronk.  That's the challenge for this offseason, I think.

     

      




    I hear what you are saying, and maybe my glasses are too rosy...

    Loosing a player like Gronk will - and should - always make a difference, because he is as good as he is. There really is no way to just plug and play another player. Loose Gronk and you loose a lot of offensive firepower. With that said, yes, you need to plan for a scenario without Gronk, or a Gronk at less than 100 %. I agree completely that the need is for a starting TE, not another gap-filler. And don't get me wrong, I think Hooman and Mulligan played their *sses off, it's just not enough.

    I guess I'm trying to say that they need balance and flexibility from their skill players. Even if Fitzgerald ended up in NE, I don't think he would have a great season here if there aren't viable targets from the TE and RB position. The should have to worry about where Brady is going with it. And that wasn't the case for most of this season and in the postseason. And taking that premise a step further, I would say that a healthy Gronk (if we ever see that again) or another starting caliber pass catching TE will lift Dobson, Boyce.

     



    I agree with this.  I think diversity of (good) options is necessary.  Certainly a Fitzgerald-caliber player would help, but we need to give Brady multiple options and we also can't be so reliant on one player that we are dead in the water if he gets hurt. 

    And you're right too that a good TE (or a good receiver) will lift the players around him, just because he'll attract coverage away from everyone else.  Gronk does that when he's in.  What stood out in the Denver game, however, was how the Denver defense didn't seem to feel concerned about double covering anyone.  They were free to keep their LBs and DBs close to the LOS where they were in equally good position to defend the run or the s-hort pass.  That really gave our offense very little to work with because we had absolutely no effective deep game. 

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    The WRs are fine, so long as they can get - and stay - healthy and the team signs Edelman for 3-4 years. What they need is a pass-catching TE to supplement Gronk.

    If 2013 showed us anything it is that a team needs depth if it wants to go far. Edelman was projected more or less as a backup to Amendola who got injured Week 1 and never really found his game again. In building a team it is dumb to put all your eggs in one basket, if you (over-)pay for one or few players it will hurt you down the line.

    The loss of both Hernandez and Gronk was too much in the end, as there was too big a drop off in production in the passing game from the TE position. 

    I really don't think they need a big overhaul on offense. Sign Edelman, sign Blount, draft a TE, draft a interior OL and they are good to go. With Dobson hopefully taking a "year two leap", Boyce returning to health and getting a full offseason, I see the current crop of receivers as set. Blount, Ridley, Vereen, Bolden are also good to go.

     



    And that's the issue is this is the first time Edelman has stayed healthy his entire career and Amendola has never been healthy. The rooks aren't on the best health track either. Right now I wouldn't count on any of them to stay health and would seek a durable vet. But, if they do it's like gravy. As for Edelman because of his injury history I wouldn't want to sign him to a long term deal unless it was incentive laden and easy to get out of. If it's another Amendola deal (which I fear might be the case) I'd let him go but my first wish would be to keep him (if something closer to the Vollmer deal).

    back to OP topic - I wanted Boldin when we almost traded for him out of Ari. We had a deal done and only dropped out at the last moment because they didn't want to sign him to an extension. Funny how this keeps coming back with getting people in the prime and drawing that hard line. Boldin, Goldson, Sanders. Though I'd love Boldin, esp for RZ, he's starting to get long in the tooth. So unless it's for a #2 WR type deal s h o rt term I'd rather go after Sanders or Crabtree

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DanishPastry. Show DanishPastry's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    Injuries happen, and this year was bad in that regard. The Amendola deal is the one that looks the most iffy at this point. I think pointing to Edelman AFTER he has demonstrated that he could stay healthy is the wrong way to go. I would also say that he is 27 where Boldin is 33, is a very good punt returner, and has proven he is productive in this system.

    The problem with a "durable vet" at this point is what kind of money you pay. Either you go after a playmaker, Decker or someone like that, or you go after the Mike Jenkins type. Problem with going for a playmaker is that you did this last year with Amendola and have a lot of money tied into him. You also have a group of young guys who were thrown into the fire faster than what was probably the idea originally. You risk slowing their growth, and IMO none of them have disqualified themselves to the point where they shouldn't have a chance next year.

    Problem going with a low cost durable vet is that, well, you get what you pay for.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Boldin instead of Edelman

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    Injuries happen, and this year was bad in that regard. The Amendola deal is the one that looks the most iffy at this point. I think pointing to Edelman AFTER he has demonstrated that he could stay healthy is the wrong way to go. I would also say that he is 27 where Boldin is 33, is a very good punt returner, and has proven he is productive in this system.

    The problem with a "durable vet" at this point is what kind of money you pay. Either you go after a playmaker, Decker or someone like that, or you go after the Mike Jenkins type. Problem with going for a playmaker is that you did this last year with Amendola and have a lot of money tied into him. You also have a group of young guys who were thrown into the fire faster than what was probably the idea originally. You risk slowing their growth, and IMO none of them have disqualified themselves to the point where they shouldn't have a chance next year.

    Problem going with a low cost durable vet is that, well, you get what you pay for.

     



    I wouldn't say he has proved he can stay healthy yet. If he has 1 more year where he's healthy I'd agree but this was his only healthy year in his career. It needs to be proven it wasn't a fluke. Which is why I would caution over signing a long term deal or one that isn't incentive laden.

    You mention that durbale vets cost money yet then the sentence after say Amendola has a lot of money tied into him. Well, Amendola is injury prone, always has been always will be. That little extra for a durable vet has a chance of backfiring (as injures do happen) but I'd rather pay that little extra for a player who has a better s h ot of being there game in and game out and not playing through an injury that limits his performance than to save a little less for one that won't give you the same production because of injury. It's upfront cost vs cost per production. The more durable playmakers like Decker cost a little more upfront but when you average out how many games they play and how many games they are productive vs the lower cost dented cans you see that you are actually paying less per production for the durable players because they are on the field more often giving you productive games.

    The problem with going for a dented can to save on cost is you get what you pay for too. BTW Mike Jenkins wasn't durable, nor Jones, nor Hawkins actually. They didn't bring in a single durable vet this offseason.

    Sometimes you have to pay a little more to get the production on the field as well as making sure they stay on the field. Sometimes you swing and miss but I'd rather swing and miss on talent then to have a less overall talented team and pay the dead money for lower cost people you cut.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share