brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    So you guys would be happy if he got you Amendola numbers(which would be a career high for him) at 3.8 million per, but you are disappointed in Danny who got those numbers while battling a bad injury for 3.5 million cap hit for 2013.

    I guess if our perspective is that Lafell will be a #4 receiver at almost 4 million per year, and he puts up those numbers it is ok?



    Oh this is too good to pass up. That's how the Pats do it True, that's their system. Are you questioning how they pay players in their system? I think they know better than you with 3 AFCCG's in a row. lol sorry too much to resist.

    But yes to your original question, why because he will do it over 16 games! and do it on a more consistent basis. Give me consistency over 4 flashy games and 12 games of little to no production any day of the week. It makes a huge difference. Btw actually if he got Amendola numbers it would be his average (LaFell has averaged ~650yrds for the last 3 years in a row) not a career high which goes to show you how much you guys got worked up over Amendola beign so great last year. Honestly True, how did trick yourself into thinking Amendola was so much better than he actually was?

    Also why did you use average for LaFell but only the first year for Amendola? If LaFell's 2014 cap hit comes in below $3mil does that change your argument? If you are going to use averages be consistent at least. Amendola signed a 5 yr $28.5 mil contract so an average of $5.5mil a year. So $3.8mil a year average for the same production as $5.5mil a year and for him to be on the field for 16 games? Yeah I'd sign up for that anyday.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So you guys would be happy if he got you Amendola numbers(which would be a career high for him) at 3.8 million per, but you are disappointed in Danny who got those numbers while battling a bad injury for 3.5 million cap hit for 2013.

    I guess if our perspective is that Lafell will be a #4 receiver at almost 4 million per year, and he puts up those numbers it is ok?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh this is too good to pass up. That's how the Pats do it True, that's their system. Are you questioning how they pay players in their system? I think they know better than you with 3 AFCCG's in a row. lol sorry too much to resist.

     

    But yes to your original question, why because he will do it over 16 games! and do it on a more consistent basis. Give me consistency over 4 flashy games and 12 games of little to no production any day of the week. It makes a huge difference. Btw actually if he got Amendola numbers it would be his average (LaFell has averaged ~650yrds for the last 3 years in a row) not a career high which goes to show you how much you guys got worked up over Amendola beign so great last year. Honestly True, how did trick yourself into thinking Amendola was so much better than he actually was?

    Also why did you use average for LaFell but only the first year for Amendola? If LaFell's 2014 cap hit comes in below $3mil does that change your argument? If you are going to use averages be consistent at least. Amendola signed a 5 yr $28.5 mil contract so an average of $5.5mil a year. So $3.8mil a year average for the same production as $5.5mil a year and for him to be on the field for 16 games? Yeah I'd sign up for that anyday.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, absolutely. I would hope he doesn't receive much in the way of guaranteed money as our system stifles new receivers and he will probably be the #4 option. 

    What do you mean "you guys got so worked up over Amendola"? He was a system fit and a solid back up plan after Welker refused our offer. 

     

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    This guy is a possession receiver with size.  The analysis provided by the OP boils down to simply that; nothing more, nothing less.  Last year, 36 of his 49 receptions were for 1st downs or TDS (31 1st/5 TD).  That's a pretty fair percentage in my book.  Did the Pats overpay?  Not sure we can make that assessment unless we know what the guaranteed money is.

    I like this signing.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to gman101019's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    ...

    I also think e. sanders is more of a dynamic player than Lafell and he got similiar money also.  

    We def did not get "value" a bb staple. We overpaid the question is by a lot or a little?

    [/QUOTE]

    Define "similar money" and "dynamic."

    LaFell 6'2 210:      60 games, 167 recepts, 2,385 yds, 14.3 ypr, 13 TDs, $3.7 mil/yr

    Sanders 5'11 186: 56 games, 161 recepts, 2,030 yds, 12.6 ypr, 11 TDs, $5.5 mil/yr

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This guy is a possession receiver with size.  The analysis provided by the OP boils down to simply that; nothing more, nothing less.  Last year, 36 of his 49 receptions were for 1st downs or TDS (31 1st/5 TD).  That's a pretty fair percentage in my book.  Did the Pats overpay?  Not sure we can make that assessment unless we know what the guaranteed money is.

    I like this signing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Those are "David Givens" type numbers. Remember when Givens at 1 point had like 35 catches for a 1st down in a row?

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to gman101019's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    ...

    I also think e. sanders is more of a dynamic player than Lafell and he got similiar money also.  

    We def did not get "value" a bb staple. We overpaid the question is by a lot or a little?

    [/QUOTE]

    Define "similar money" and "dynamic."

    LaFell 6'2 210:      60 games, 167 recepts, 2,385 yds, 14.3 ypr, 13 TDs, $3.7 mil/yr

    Sanders 5'11 186: 56 games, 161 recepts, 2,030 yds, 12.6 ypr, 11 TDs, $5.5 mil/yr

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. I think Lafell was Denver's first choice and went with plan b after the pats nabbed Lafell Which was sanders. Would rather have Lafell.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This guy is a possession receiver with size.  The analysis provided by the OP boils down to simply that; nothing more, nothing less.  Last year, 36 of his 49 receptions were for 1st downs or TDS (31 1st/5 TD).  That's a pretty fair percentage in my book.  Did the Pats overpay?  Not sure we can make that assessment unless we know what the guaranteed money is.

    I like this signing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Those are "David Givens" type numbers. Remember when Givens at 1 point had like 35 catches for a 1st down in a row?

    [/QUOTE]

    I do, and if this guy is Givens when Givens was Givens his addition to the team being a plus is a given.  (Yes as a matter of fact there were a couple of intentional, albeit weak, puns in that sentence.)

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Yes, absolutely. I would hope he doesn't receive much in the way of guaranteed money as our system stifles new receivers and he will probably be the #4 option. 

    What do you mean "you guys got so worked up over Amendola"? He was a system fit and a solid back up plan after Welker refused our offer. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    TFB and I got killed last offseason when we called Amendola a #3, not worth what they paid him, injury prone, and a poor replacement for Welker. All we heard (and yes I heard some of this from you too) was Amendola was going to be better than Welker, that he was quicker, bigger, more clutch, and that the injury prone thing wasn't real and was just a fluke and he'd prove us wrong. A good amount of people on the board fell in love with Amendola instantly and jumped on us for questioning BB for signing him to as much as he got for as little production as he gave instead of retaining Welker and here you are questioning a player who is getting paid less (and I would bet got a lot less guaranteed) for the same amount of production who is actually durable. I just find it comical in a sense and the irony that LaFell would actually be considered a good value pickup in comparison to Amendola's deal.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to TravisBean's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Whoever said Givens is right on. That's the idea, anyway.  When Brady was winning titles, no one cared what WR had what # assigned to what they did.

    The pink hats like to do that, but real fans don't.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, it's a little different when you have a good defense to help out.  The offense doesn't have all the pressure on them to have to put up so many points in order to win games.  When your defense is not as good, each offensive play is do or die so you tend to go to the receivers you really trust.  When you have a good defense then you can afford to spread it around, maybe take some chances on the less reliable or proven players.  People who know the game understand this.

    With the way the off season is shaping up it looks like the defense will actually help this team instead of hinder it this coming season. 

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    Liking what I am reading about Lafell.   

    Here is some good info on film breakdown of him..

    http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2014/03/film_review_getting_familiar_w_1.html

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?


    Yea ummm, guys never end up doing what they did in other places. They get OVERUSED here and this is a passing team and Carolina paid max contract to TWO running backs. That tells you what you need to know. Non story as this guy has NO idea how BB plans to use him. If he is a vet, why do we assume he is gonna be behind Dobson, Boyce,etc??  its a dumb assupmtion. Im fine with it. We Paid Ocho 6 MILLION to ride the bench so Spare me..... smh

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Liking what I am reading about Lafell.   

    Here is some good info on film breakdown of him..

    http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2014/03/film_review_getting_familiar_w_1.html

    [/QUOTE]


    Seems a good signing.  Of course, the proof is always what he does here.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Liking what I am reading about Lafell.   

    Here is some good info on film breakdown of him..

    http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2014/03/film_review_getting_familiar_w_1.html

    [/QUOTE]


    Seems a good signing.  Of course, the proof is always what he does here.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sure, I agree but having not watched a lot of his play it is good to hear some nice positives to this guy.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Yes, absolutely. I would hope he doesn't receive much in the way of guaranteed money as our system stifles new receivers and he will probably be the #4 option. 

    What do you mean "you guys got so worked up over Amendola"? He was a system fit and a solid back up plan after Welker refused our offer. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    TFB and I got killed last offseason when we called Amendola a #3, not worth what they paid him, injury prone, and a poor replacement for Welker. All we heard (and yes I heard some of this from you too) was Amendola was going to be better than Welker, that he was quicker, bigger, more clutch, and that the injury prone thing wasn't real and was just a fluke and he'd prove us wrong. A good amount of people on the board fell in love with Amendola instantly and jumped on us for questioning BB for signing him to as much as he got for as little production as he gave instead of retaining Welker and here you are questioning a player who is getting paid less (and I would bet got a lot less guaranteed) for the same amount of production who is actually durable. I just find it comical in a sense and the irony that LaFell would actually be considered a good value pickup in comparison to Amendola's deal.

    [/QUOTE]

    Include me in that camp please..

    breakdown of lafells contract below. A much better contract per production than breakindola.

    The following is the contract breakdown for receiver Brandon LaFell with the New England Patriots

    Term: 3 years 
    Signing bonus:
     $3 million 
    Total value: $9 million 

    2014 
    Base: $800,000 
    Roster bonus: $200,000 (12,500 per game on the 46-man roster) 
    Cap: $2 million 

    2015 
    Base: $1.8 million 
    Roster bonus: $400,000 (25,000 per game on the 46-man roster) 
    Cap: $3.2 million 

    2016 
    Base: $2.4 million 
    Roster bonus: $400,000 (25,000 per game on the 46-man roster) 
    Cap: $3.8 million 

    QUICK-HIT THOUGHTS: The sole guarantee in the deal is the $3 million signing bonus. This is a straight-forward deal that LaFell should be able to earn in full if he performs.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Liking what I am reading about Lafell.   

    Here is some good info on film breakdown of him..

    http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2014/03/film_review_getting_familiar_w_1.html

    [/QUOTE]


    Seems a good signing.  Of course, the proof is always what he does here.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sure, I agree but having not watched a lot of his play it is good to hear some nice positives to this guy.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree. Thanks for including the link...

    beside being a good route runner and catching the ball away from his body, I like this little tidbit from the article...

    --While his blocking ability flies somewhat under the radar, LaFell isn't afraid to get down the field and mix things up. There were also times last season when he operated out of the backfield, which gives Patriots coach Bill Belichick some versatility to work with. 

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    My problem with Amendola was mostly that he didn't bring anything new to the team--he was merely a replacement for Welker and a less proven one.  To me, Amendola was (in the short term at least) a downgrade for Welker.  I understood he was younger and maybe had more long term potential than Welker, but I also didn't think he'd make the receiver corp any better in 2013 than it was the prior year.  In fact, with Welker leaving and the unproven, oft-injured Amendola replacing him, I thought there was a high risk that the receiver position would get worse. 

    What I think is different about the LaFell signing is that he isn't a replacement for anyone and he has a skillset unlike the skillsets of anyone else on the team (Thompkins is closest, but Thompkins is very unproven and may not make the roster this year).  LaFell really is an addition that makes the team deeper and more diverse.  

    As far as his production, it may not be as high as Amendola's.  But that has a lot to do with the fact that our scheme has in recent years heavily utilized small slot receivers like Welker, Edelman, Amendola, and Collie.  I think LaFell, with his larger size, provides scheme flexibility that we didn't have before.  That's huge to me, because I think we haven't had as much diversity in our offense as we need.  LaFell's production may (or may not) be higher than our small slot receivers' (and I'm grouping all of them together) production, but his contribution will be different, and it's the additon of that different type of weapon that has me excited. With the LaFell signing, we've expanded what the offense can do, I think, and that should make us harder to defend. 

     

     

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    So you guys would be happy if he got you Amendola numbers(which would be a career high for him) at 3.8 million per, but you are disappointed in Danny who got those numbers while battling a bad injury for 3.5 million cap hit for 2013.

    I guess if our perspective is that Lafell will be a #4 receiver at almost 4 million per year, and he puts up those numbers it is ok?



    Ok True, so numbers are out and he's making $2mil this year as compared to Amendola's $3.5mil for his first year. Additionally if cut after this year only counts towards $2mil in dead money moving forward. So...... same production with better durability for a lot and I mean a lot less money than Amendola how do you now fell about him as a #3 or 4 WR compared to Amendola who at times last year was treated as the #3 WR. He's not a great receiver but adds depth and for a decent price considering that's the going right for his type of production so far.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    loving this LaFell signing even more. that 3/9M is beautiful. he could easily out produce that contract so fast.!

     

    Jody Breeze@Blafell1 37s

    I'm gonna have to wear either 10 or 19 #Patriots

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    So you guys would be happy if he got you Amendola numbers(which would be a career high for him) at 3.8 million per, but you are disappointed in Danny who got those numbers while battling a bad injury for 3.5 million cap hit for 2013.

    I guess if our perspective is that Lafell will be a #4 receiver at almost 4 million per year, and he puts up those numbers it is ok?



    Ok True, so numbers are out and he's making $2mil this year as compared to Amendola's $3.5mil for his first year. Additionally if cut after this year only counts towards $2mil in dead money moving forward. So...... same production with better durability for a lot and I mean a lot less money than Amendola how do you know fell about him as a #3 or 4 WR compared to Amendola who at times last year was treated as the #3 WR.




    Should have kept Welker, LOL!

    Oh stop, I'm kidding........ or am I?

     

    THis is a tough one, I think all that's left now is just seeing how it plays out with Amendola and LaFell as well as Dobson, Thompkins.  We know what Edelman can do.  This is very interesting to watch develop.  I am more intrigued with the WR dynamics this year, where last year I was just plain frustrated with what they had going into camp.  And the funny thing is, it is still really early in this season so will they add more I think one more.  Certainly like what I am seeing, let's see what happens at TE.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    My problem with Amendola was mostly that he didn't bring anything new to the team--he was merely a replacement for Welker and a less proven one.  To me, Amendola was (in the short term at least) a downgrade for Welker.  I understood he was younger and maybe had more long term potential than Welker, but I also didn't think he'd make the receiver corp any better in 2013 than it was the prior year.  In fact, with Welker leaving and the unproven, oft-injured Amendola replacing him, I thought there was a high risk that the receiver position would get worse. 

    What I think is different about the LaFell signing is that he isn't a replacement for anyone and he has a skillset unlike the skillsets of anyone else on the team (Thompkins is closest, but Thompkins is very unproven and may not make the roster this year).  LaFell really is an addition that makes the team deeper and more diverse.  

    As far as his production, it may not be as high as Amendola's.  But that has a lot to do with the fact that our scheme has in recent years heavily utilized small slot receivers like Welker, Edelman, Amendola, and Collie.  I think LaFell, with his larger size, provides scheme flexibility that we didn't have before.  That's huge to me, because I think we haven't had as much diversity in our offense as we need.  LaFell's production may (or may not) be higher than our small slot receivers' (and I'm grouping all of them together) production, but his contribution will be different, and it's the additon of that different type of weapon that has me excited. With the LaFell signing, we've expanded what the offense can do, I think, and that should make us harder to defend. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    exactly, good points

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    Listening to talk radio this week a guest was saying they thought Lafell had been playing out of position in Carolina (slot) and would do better on the outside here. He said Lafell would do well on the 15-20 yard out cuts that Brady likes to throw - which I thought was funny because I don't necessarily think that's a throw he's really good at - but it's true we didn't really have anyone to run that route last year. Maybe Dobson ran that route, but it looked like when he wasn't struggling, he was battling some sort of injury. The guy also said guys like Amendola and Edelman really couldn't run those routes well because of their lack of length to reach for the ball - he said Brady missed those throws by a few feet and a guy like Lafell might get to those passes. I personally watched Amendola absolutely get crushed on those routes because of his lack of ability to separate - both Denver games comes to mind - he was one on one against corners outside and showed nothing out of his outside cut as the ball sailed right beyond his reach. Hopefully Lafell will add something, if he does he's worth every penny.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So you guys would be happy if he got you Amendola numbers(which would be a career high for him) at 3.8 million per, but you are disappointed in Danny who got those numbers while battling a bad injury for 3.5 million cap hit for 2013.

    I guess if our perspective is that Lafell will be a #4 receiver at almost 4 million per year, and he puts up those numbers it is ok?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok True, so numbers are out and he's making $2mil this year as compared to Amendola's $3.5mil for his first year. Additionally if cut after this year only counts towards $2mil in dead money moving forward. So...... same production with better durability for a lot and I mean a lot less money than Amendola how do you now fell about him as a #3 or 4 WR compared to Amendola who at times last year was treated as the #3 WR. He's not a great receiver but adds depth and for a decent price considering that's the going right for his type of production so far.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That sounds like a perfect contract. Much better for a #4 receiver, BB striking great value deals like always.

    I think we were all in agreement that Amendola was over paid, but it was the same 10 million in guaranteed money that we offered Welker. We had to over pay for Amendola when Welker spurned us for the Broncos.  

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to croc's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Givens 2.0

    [/QUOTE]

    Took you all of 2 minutes to nail that one.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So you guys would be happy if he got you Amendola numbers(which would be a career high for him) at 3.8 million per, but you are disappointed in Danny who got those numbers while battling a bad injury for 3.5 million cap hit for 2013.

    I guess if our perspective is that Lafell will be a #4 receiver at almost 4 million per year, and he puts up those numbers it is ok?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok True, so numbers are out and he's making $2mil this year as compared to Amendola's $3.5mil for his first year. Additionally if cut after this year only counts towards $2mil in dead money moving forward. So...... same production with better durability for a lot and I mean a lot less money than Amendola how do you now fell about him as a #3 or 4 WR compared to Amendola who at times last year was treated as the #3 WR. He's not a great receiver but adds depth and for a decent price considering that's the going right for his type of production so far.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That sounds like a perfect contract. Much better for a #4 receiver, BB striking great value deals like always.

    I think we were all in agreement that Amendola was over paid, but it was the same 10 million in guaranteed money that we offered Welker. We had to over pay for Amendola when Welker spurned us for the Broncos.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Why? Seriously, no one else was rumored to even come close to that deal including the Rams. Heck Amendola's agent was blowing the ink dry as he was breaking the fax button to get into into the league offices fast enough. I think they put a price on the position and not the player which was their mistake, esp on Amendola.

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

    Re: brandon lafell wr #4!?!?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So you guys would be happy if he got you Amendola numbers(which would be a career high for him) at 3.8 million per, but you are disappointed in Danny who got those numbers while battling a bad injury for 3.5 million cap hit for 2013.

    I guess if our perspective is that Lafell will be a #4 receiver at almost 4 million per year, and he puts up those numbers it is ok?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok True, so numbers are out and he's making $2mil this year as compared to Amendola's $3.5mil for his first year. Additionally if cut after this year only counts towards $2mil in dead money moving forward. So...... same production with better durability for a lot and I mean a lot less money than Amendola how do you now fell about him as a #3 or 4 WR compared to Amendola who at times last year was treated as the #3 WR. He's not a great receiver but adds depth and for a decent price considering that's the going right for his type of production so far.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That sounds like a perfect contract. Much better for a #4 receiver, BB striking great value deals like always.

    I think we were all in agreement that Amendola was over paid, but it was the same 10 million in guaranteed money that we offered Welker. We had to over pay for Amendola when Welker spurned us for the Broncos.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Why? Seriously, no one else was rumored to even come close to that deal including the Rams. Heck Amendola's agent was blowing the ink dry as he was breaking the fax button to get into into the league offices fast enough. I think they put a price on the position and not the player which was their mistake, esp on Amendola.

    [/QUOTE]

    The need to call every BB deal genius is silly.  The Amendola deal was a poor one.  People are actually talking as if the Patriots did something special signing Revis for 12 million with a 20 million option next year.  It is a fine fair market deal, don't get me wrong, but it isn't like the Pats got Revis cheap.

    Edelman at 4+ million a year with 6 to 8 million guaranteed is okay, but again, I'm not seeing this as anything special. 

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share