Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

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

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Saw some tape on Mathews before last nights game.  Dood is good!!!!  Then I watch Urlacher play and I am convinced he has to duck and turn sideways to get through a door.  Looks like a man among children.  Some great LBs playing last night.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Based on what we know today, I'd rather have Mathews.

    IMO, an elite, game changing edge player is worth far more than the combo of a 2nd or nickel CB, 3rd and 4th WR (both with return potential) and a potential starting TE.


    At this point, it's an easy decision for me.

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

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Well I will throw this in too for consideration:

    1. CM cost much more against the cap (when there was a cap) than all 4 of those combined.

    2. Depth. In a league where injuries happen so much (Bodden, Warren, McGowan, Faulk already on IR). 

    It is a much tougher call than it appears on first look. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    I'm sorry but how did we get all that for the 1 pick.  I think more was involved in it then just that so not sure thats accurate.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from btownteamsrking. Show btownteamsrking's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    [QUOTE]I'm sorry but how did we get all that for the 1 pick.  I think more was involved in it then just that so not sure thats accurate.
    Posted by Patsman2[/QUOTE]

    its a long line of picks being dealt stemming from that 1st round pick.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Since we're talking what ifs, how about they keep all those guys and sign Julius Peppers?  That way it's just Bob Kraft's money that they give up.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from btownteamsrking. Show btownteamsrking's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    im surprised at the results, 6 to 1 favor the current team.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Sorry but what's so great about Matthews?  Can he set the edge?  Can he cover?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from btownteamsrking. Show btownteamsrking's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    [QUOTE]Sorry but what's so great about Matthews?  Can he set the edge?  Can he cover?
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    He is a 2nd year OLB that looks like a Pro Bowler already. Make no mistake, he is a great young talent and would happen to fill a major void on this team. 

    11 to 1. Patriots nation seems content after all with the collection. 

    I will add this in, Edelman was a very late round pick.  You could argue we might have him regardless of this trade.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Matthews is great but I take the latter: more depth, more diverse players. Plus, it was more of a need at the time. I know pass rusher is also a need but there are only so many needs you can fill through one draft. We still have four high picks next year to pursue DE, LB, and perhaps OL.

    One could argue that our offense was better off than our defense so we should have drafted on that side of the ball. I think Belichick saw that more potent offenses have a better chance at winning titles these days and since tight end was such a huge need for us (finishing drives, run-blocking, giving Brady more options, etc.), we went that route since there was a handful to choose from.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    [QUOTE]Patriots gave; Clay Mathews Patriots received: Darius Butler, Brandon Tate, Julian Edelman, & Rob Gronkowski This was the entire deal involving that 1st round pick traded away. I know most of you will just say Mathews easily, but to me this is tough one to decide. Keep in mind, who would replace all of those guys in their positions? I know everyone is down on Butler, but what about the other 3? Would we be better off just taking Mathews?  Which side would u rather have?
    Posted by btownteamsrking[/QUOTE]

    Too many other factors and counter-moves could be involved had we taken Matthews. The situation can be spun in many ways.

    Here is how I see it:

    Matthews, Gaffney, Watson and Javon Ringer

    or 

    Brace, Gronk, Tate, McKenzie (cut), Burgess (cut)

    Brace and Butler were drafted back to back, Brace was Wilfork insurance in case team didn't sign him, Pats could have/should have just known internally they must do everything to keep Vince and then could have taken Butler w/ the Oakland pick.

    They were high on Butler for his speed, special teams and as a nickel guy. I am still high on him as that type of back, a great 3rd CB who will find his way and improve. Bodden was to be the #1 this year and thats what hurts.

    Tate was a Jabar Gaffney replacement who has yet to make a major impact beyond 1 kick return TD in 20 games since he was drafted. But his future is def very bright.

    Gaffney knew the offense and has had 71 receptions since we replaced him with Tate. Certainly the future is not better with 29 yr old Gaffney over 23 yr old Tate, but we'd have been better last season, certainly after Welker went down in the playoffs, and could have made alternate moves to be better this year, if we even needed more depth at WR.

    The Pats also lost a 5th rd pick in the trade w/ Green Bay, #162... that could have been used on Ringer, who sources said the club was high on... who knows if eh makes the team, but maybe he gets Maroney shipped out of here before last season for like a 3rd instead of a 4th??

    I'm 99% sure they could have taken Edelman 2 picks later in the 7th over worthless DT Darryl Richard... everyone expected Edelman to go undrafted

    Moving on to '10, Yes we would NOT have the pick we used on Gronkowski anymore, but maybe had we not traded for Burgess (b/c we had Matthews) and had that 4th or decided that w/ Moss, Welker, Edelman, Gaffney and Aiken we had enough WR's and not needed Price... we could have used the Cunningham pick and packaged to move up to take Gronk.

    Had we not felt we'd have the picks to draft either elite TE (Gronk and Gresham) I'd think the team would have simply kept Ben Watson, knowing he was an average 35-45 5-6 TD a year TE and Crumpler was an upgrade to Baker.

    So yeah... Matthews and vets like Gaffney and Watson

    or

    Gronk, Brace, Tate and guys we cut in Burgess/McKenzie

    Just the swap of Burgess (chemistry issue, underachiever) and Tate for Matthews/Gaffney alone last year would have made a WORLD of difference on this team (apologies to Tate, he was on the PUP and not expected to do anything till year 2)

    Who knows if it changes the dynamic of the entire Welker injury situation

    There are just so many unknowns



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

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    What's done is done this is all a moot point....Like me saying would Brady have taken a pay cut so the Pats brass could sign Demarcus Ware (who is better than Mathews). A better idea would be to start posting the players the Pats could take with 2 1sts and 2 seconds in 2011. That is at least grounded in reality (the here and now not the then and maybe shoulda). Romeus or Clayborn or Dareus could all be better than Mathews. I am surprised no one has mentioned how well Mc Fadden is playing and how we should have  traded up not down (Mayo) to get him instead of Mayo.  I agree that Mathews is good, but I still truly believe that Belichick does what he thinks is best for the team and its future. He will never always be right (that is impossible for any GM), but he represents the Pats interests pretty darn well.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from btownteamsrking. Show btownteamsrking's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have? : Too many other factors and counter-moves could be involved had we taken Matthews. The situation can be spun in many ways. Here is how I see it: Matthews, Gaffney, Watson and Javon Ringer or  Brace, Gronk, Tate, McKenzie (cut), Burgess (cut) Brace and Butler were drafted back to back, Brace was Wilfork insurance in case team didn't sign him, Pats could have/should have just known internally they must do everything to keep Vince and then could have taken Butler w/ the Oakland pick. They were high on Butler for his speed, special teams and as a nickel guy. I am still high on him as that type of back, a great 3rd CB who will find his way and improve. Bodden was to be the #1 this year and thats what hurts. Tate was a Jabar Gaffney replacement who has yet to make a major impact beyond 1 kick return TD in 20 games since he was drafted. But his future is def very bright. Gaffney knew the offense and has had 71 receptions since we replaced him with Tate. Certainly the future is not better with 29 yr old Gaffney over 23 yr old Tate, but we'd have been better last season, certainly after Welker went down in the playoffs, and could have made alternate moves to be better this year, if we even needed more depth at WR. The Pats also lost a 5th rd pick in the trade w/ Green Bay, #162... that could have been used on Ringer, who sources said the club was high on... who knows if eh makes the team, but maybe he gets Maroney shipped out of here before last season for like a 3rd instead of a 4th?? I'm 99% sure they could have taken Edelman 2 picks later in the 7th over worthless DT Darryl Richard... everyone expected Edelman to go undrafted Moving on to '10, Yes we would NOT have the pick we used on Gronkowski anymore, but maybe had we not traded for Burgess (b/c we had Matthews) and had that 4th or decided that w/ Moss, Welker, Edelman, Gaffney and Aiken we had enough WR's and not needed Price... we could have used the Cunningham pick and packaged to move up to take Gronk. Had we not felt we'd have the picks to draft either elite TE (Gronk and Gresham) I'd think the team would have simply kept Ben Watson, knowing he was an average 35-45 5-6 TD a year TE and Crumpler was an upgrade to Baker. So yeah... Matthews and vets like Gaffney and Watson or Gronk, Brace, Tate and guys we cut in Burgess/McKenzie Just the swap of Burgess (chemistry issue, underachiever) and Tate for Matthews/Gaffney alone last year would have made a WORLD of difference on this team (apologies to Tate, he was on the PUP and not expected to do anything till year 2) Who knows if it changes the dynamic of the entire Welker injury situation There are just so many unknowns
    Posted by rameakap[/QUOTE]

    Great points.  I do believe that Gaffney and Watson are gone no matter what and someone else replaces them. Gaffney got more money from Denver and Watson was just not wanted. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolltide1963. Show rolltide1963's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have? : Too many other factors and counter-moves could be involved had we taken Matthews. The situation can be spun in many ways. Here is how I see it: Matthews, Gaffney, Watson and Javon Ringer or  Brace, Gronk, Tate, McKenzie (cut), Burgess (cut) Brace and Butler were drafted back to back, Brace was Wilfork insurance in case team didn't sign him, Pats could have/should have just known internally they must do everything to keep Vince and then could have taken Butler w/ the Oakland pick. They were high on Butler for his speed, special teams and as a nickel guy. I am still high on him as that type of back, a great 3rd CB who will find his way and improve. Bodden was to be the #1 this year and thats what hurts. Tate was a Jabar Gaffney replacement who has yet to make a major impact beyond 1 kick return TD in 20 games since he was drafted. But his future is def very bright. Gaffney knew the offense and has had 71 receptions since we replaced him with Tate. Certainly the future is not better with 29 yr old Gaffney over 23 yr old Tate, but we'd have been better last season, certainly after Welker went down in the playoffs, and could have made alternate moves to be better this year, if we even needed more depth at WR. The Pats also lost a 5th rd pick in the trade w/ Green Bay, #162... that could have been used on Ringer, who sources said the club was high on... who knows if eh makes the team, but maybe he gets Maroney shipped out of here before last season for like a 3rd instead of a 4th?? I'm 99% sure they could have taken Edelman 2 picks later in the 7th over worthless DT Darryl Richard... everyone expected Edelman to go undrafted Moving on to '10, Yes we would NOT have the pick we used on Gronkowski anymore, but maybe had we not traded for Burgess (b/c we had Matthews) and had that 4th or decided that w/ Moss, Welker, Edelman, Gaffney and Aiken we had enough WR's and not needed Price... we could have used the Cunningham pick and packaged to move up to take Gronk. Had we not felt we'd have the picks to draft either elite TE (Gronk and Gresham) I'd think the team would have simply kept Ben Watson, knowing he was an average 35-45 5-6 TD a year TE and Crumpler was an upgrade to Baker. So yeah... Matthews and vets like Gaffney and Watson or Gronk, Brace, Tate and guys we cut in Burgess/McKenzie Just the swap of Burgess (chemistry issue, underachiever) and Tate for Matthews/Gaffney alone last year would have made a WORLD of difference on this team (apologies to Tate, he was on the PUP and not expected to do anything till year 2) Who knows if it changes the dynamic of the entire Welker injury situation There are just so many unknowns
    Posted by rameakap[/QUOTE]


    I concur.  The ripples will continue to fan out over time.  Too many facets to look at it as simply as the initial post. 

    In the end, I would have taken Mathews.  I said back then and will continue to do so.  The ability to come off the edge and get to the QB definitely alters some game planning.  The Patriots simply do not have a pass rusher that keeps and OC awake at nights, and that puts a lot of Pressure on our secondary.  Or, do you enjoy watching the likes of Henne, last year,  and the Buffalo Bills putting up those passing yards against our D ?  It is easier to hide a weaker secondary with a pass rush than it is to overcome a weak pass rush with coverage. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from btownteamsrking. Show btownteamsrking's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    i know this is a very simplified version of the results of the trades. If you want to complicate it further, u could add the cap room created by not taking Mathews. 

    I am surprised at how many fans (who have trashed the defense) would still keep it the way it is. 

    for the record, it is a very even deal imo and either way is good to me. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    http://www.nfldraftbible.com/Latest/usc_linebackers_test_positive.html

    Breaking News: USC Linebackers Test Positive
    Thursday, 02 April 2009 15:38
    USC LB’s Brian Cushing & Clay Matthews tested positive for steroids at the NFL Scouting Combine, according to various sources, including one NFL team.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    patriots don't need any blonde longhaired pretty boys on the team. man up
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from btownteamsrking. Show btownteamsrking's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    [QUOTE]http://www.nfldraftbible.com/Latest/usc_linebackers_test_positive.html Breaking News: USC Linebackers Test Positive Thursday, 02 April 2009 15:38 USC LB’s Brian Cushing & Clay Matthews tested positive for steroids at the NFL Scouting Combine, according to various sources, including one NFL team.
    Posted by digger0862[/QUOTE]

    i knew cushing got caught, but wow usc is just a bunch of true cheaters
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from isurfvb35. Show isurfvb35's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    clay matthews wont be doing any team any good if he gets in trouble again. and how long can he play at the same level without his body breaking down due to the roids he was taking. hindsight is 20/20 i will stick with the team we have now and the 4 draft picks we have in the first 2rounds of next years draft, it takes time to build a superbowl caliber team and the pats will get it done within the next year or two.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    [QUOTE]i knew cushing got caught, but wow usc is just a bunch of true cheaters
    Posted by btownteamsrking[/QUOTE]
    It's on the internet so it must be true. lol

    That was the only link I could find on this. On another thread it was speculated that Matthews looked like he might be a user, so I did a search. Who knows if it's true but Belichick did pass on him so ya never know.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Clay is good for what GB does on defense. 

    If he is here, across from TBC it would be ok, but I think it is obvious BB like to carry one guy  who is a DE/OLB tweener out there. Someone who can set an edge like a 43 end and really go toe to toe with a tackle which is something that neither he nor TBC can really do. 

    The question isn't whether I want him, it is whether NE wants him for what they plan on doing. 

    As far as straight value for value, he is blossoming early, the others at different rates. In two years this question will be more valid.

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

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    The thing about this is that the scenario is not accurate. I say it is reasonable to assume that we could have had Matthews and most if not all of the remaining picks. The players we took were considered "reaches" by the so called "experts" which tells me they were targeted by Bill, and with his draft day trading history he would have got who he wanted one way or the other. I think we didn't take Matthews because of the financial implications involved in drafting a guy in the 1st rd(unfortunately IMO). I think particularly the last 2 drafts were influenced by the looming cba situation.

    Also to all those who say Matthews isn't that great then you must not have watched the game last night. This guy was held on almost every play and he has a constant motor. I say if he is in a Pats uni wearing Ted Johnson's old # then we have a legitimate pass rush right now. He looks like Thor God of war!


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

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Everytime I look at Mathews, I think roids. I'm not accusing him of anything because I don't know but he reminds me of Merriman before he got busted.  Big splash, all over the place, incredible energy level, everybody talking about him.  We'll know if his hair starts to fall out or he gets those weird roid injuries.

    So I'd take the players we got.

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

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    This is crazy.  Look at REALITY.

    The reality is that the PATRIOTS drafting sucked from 2006 to 2008.  Gawd look how bad 2008 is. Unbelievable.

    Plus losing Asante Samuel and signing Adalius Thomas and Burgess.  simple as that.

    The Colts, Steelers, and even Jets are doing a better job with drafting and free agent signings.  It's as simple as that.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from vafan2004. Show vafan2004's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Why even engage in such second guessing?  It does not change anything except speculation and what might have been.  True the Patriots need major pass rush help but they have a good crop players from this trade.  
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share