What can we do at Running Back?

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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : We debated the addition of a feature RB yesterday on another post and even Babe admited that Brady and the passing attack would be more dynamic if we had a RB of a pro bowl caliber do to the respect defenses would pay us. By adding a RB we do not need to run more or change the offense. We are a balanced offense now and we run often enough. We just do not force opposing defenses to play us honest and we allow them to cheat against the pass. ....
    Posted by Asher77[/QUOTE]

    Asher, I just don't see how it makes sense to bring in Richardson or any big time RB, and pay the associated cost which whether reasonable or high, is still a considerable cost, if you don't intend to feature him. It seems you're saying he'd be a decoy of sorts and that you would still run the offense the same way as they have in the past.

    I guess I don't see how the marginal gain of using Richardson for 10 to 15 carries a game over using BJGE for that same number of carries (and not changing anything else in your offensive approach) is worth giving up what you have to give up to get him, even if it's "reasonable."

    If you make the investment in a Richardson, which includes a big contract as a high pick, you necessarily need to change the way you run the offense. Or else, you don't do it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : How is Mallet now the farm? Also Rusty my point to get the RB was inspired by your neever ending crusade to get Brady to throw under 40 times ( although I dont think it is the amount of times he throws thats the issue ). If there is someone I can convert to this idea I think it might be you.
    Posted by Asher77[/QUOTE]


    I don't know what you mean by your 1st question referencing a farm.

    As for the bigger name RB, I agree with you if that is what it takes to ween Brady off of his addictions and preferably throw 35 times or less in a game now.

    That's why I keep suggesting MJ Drew or even more affordably, Jonathan Stewart.  Apparently, they don't respect the ascension of BJGE, his consistency and the fact they don't really lose when BJGE is the lead back.

    It's almost like Brady and BB are bored so they want to play Russian Roullette by continuing to make the same ideological mistakes with offensive approach, to see if it somehow changes, finally.

    Obviously, this isn't true, but that's how it looks.   I don't really care how the problem is fixed, just get it fixed.  Passing more certainly isn't the solution.

    Lloyd helps a lot because he's a slam dunk fit due to the system and he runs all routes from all areas in the system. This makes a Revis not as good because you know they'll play man and you then know where Revis is.  That worked well in the last 2 games on the Jets man coverage/flood tactic, but really, BJGE's running was the ket on the Jets.  Even when it wasn't great in the second game this year in NY, the commitment to it, opened up that second half. 

    The fear is, if our D doesn't create multiple turnovers ina game like that, is it really 37-16?  No, it's not, just like the SB we just witnessed. Our offense needs another gear, so to speak.

    That (Lloyd running all of the routes and a threat deep) allows you to do some dictating, but it doesn't completely solve the problem either.



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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : Asher, I just don't see how it makes sense to bring in Richardson or any big time RB, and pay the associated cost which whether reasonable or high, is still a considerable cost, if you don't intend to feature him. It seems you're saying he'd be a decoy of sorts and that you would still run the offense the same way as they have in the past. I guess I don't see how the marginal gain of using Richardson for 10 to 15 carries a game over using BJGE for that same number of carries (and not changing anything else in your offensive approach) is worth giving up what you have to give up to get him, even if it's "reasonable." If you make the investment in a Richardson, which includes a big contract as a high pick, you necessarily need to change the way you run the offense. Or else, you don't do it.
    Posted by Muzwell[/QUOTE]

    Here's what I would do:

    If Welker doesn't take a 7.5 mil per 3 year deal or a 2 year deal on the table at 9 per in guaranteed money, let him sign the tag and trade him to an NFC team that is willing give him what he wants. We'll take a 2013 1st rd pick, thanks very much.

    Love the guy, a classic Patriot player, but I don't want an unreasonable agent and player, like the Mankins situation, to handcuff the team moving forward.

    Next, go give Carolina their 2nd rd pick for Jonathan Stewart.

    Third, the money cleared by Welker's non-9.5 million and Matt Light's possible retirement, allows you to make one nice splash in FA. That would clear an additional 18 million dollars. People keep talking about Wimbley, so maybe that's something you look to do on defense.  Don't overpay, but this further gives you some leverage in spending.

    Maybe you work out a deal with your buddy, Jim Schwartz and Mayhew in Detroit They could use Welker and maybe need to clear some space by parting with Cliff Avril, who wants a long term extension. Hmm.

    Last, target OLB (3-4) in the draft, FS and WR.   Upshaw, Dennard and Sanu seem like very nice fits to me in the need spots.  Maybe Joe Adams at WR in Round 3.  Trade Hoyer for a 3rd or 4th rd pick as well.

    You increase camp competition and handle your weaker spots both in the draft and in FA/via trades.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]You want to trade Mallett after a year of development here, a chance to bring him along slower behind Brady, after a potential steal in the 3rd rd last year?  Just trade Hoyer for a 3rd if you want ROI on the QB investment.  They're going to have to cut bait with Hoyer in some fashion here, because he is a FA next year.  I can't see BB unloading the farm for a rookie RB, although it would makse sense from a financial standpoint. In the end, I'd rather unload the back end 2nd to Carolina and then control the contract leverage for Stewart's extension that way.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]


    There is your Farm reference i alluded to.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    I think with the passing attack the Pats will have this year the RB's we have should be good enough. I am open of course to a free agent or trade for a bigger back for those must have yards.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : There is your Farm reference i alluded to.
    Posted by Asher77[/QUOTE]

    Ahh. Ok. Well, he;d have to to move up for Richardson.

    1. He's the best back.
    2. 1st rd picks are now more golden than before due to the rookie cap.

    Do you not like the Stewart idea?  If you look at the best teams, ones that run it well, look at their RB depth.

    You have to bank on at least one RB not being 100% come playoff time, so if you they walk from BJGE, they'll need to hit this.  BJGE is better than Michael Bush in this system and no one else is attractive.

    One guy that could get clipped with Drew Brees's contract situation is Pierre Thomas. I always liked him, BB did enough to almost deal for him in 2010, and with Ingram there, Colston given an increase, and Brees's situation, Mickey Loomis is sitting in a tough spot.

    BB is pretty good hedging his bets on situations like that where he lets camp cuts fall into his lap.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    I think most of what your saying is right Rusty. We are to predictable an offense and use many bad sets. I think that is dictated though based on personnel to some degree. If we were to run alot during the season, really establish it. I still think that during the SB the giants would sell out against the pass and when push came to shove the Pats would go to that pass in the second half and say to heck with the run. Why is because as much as we want to be balanced and spark fear in the run game to have defenses play us honest. In the big game it isnt going to happen. Brady is among the best ever and you will be expected to put it in his hands over a mid lvl RB. Real of imaginary, the opposing D will cheat pass all the way at the big moments. They do not want to let Brady beat them.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ejb222. Show ejb222's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    I think most of the opinions on here are really not well informed nor well thought out. You don't NEED a Pro Bowl Running back. You need Vareen and Ridley to step up and be effective at their games. I would take BJGE back or Ronnie Brown for cheap. But PB RB is a waste of money and draft pick(if you could actually pick one). Why gamble in the draft when you already have 2 gambles on the team? Why spend the money on a PB RB when a simple step up would be good enough to vastly improve a already devistating offense? A PB running back is not the answer. Defense and giving TB12 more touches is the answer.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]Question: How many times do we rush in a game right now, the way this Offense is being put together? 15, 20? Cant see more than 20. 3 RB's 6 carries each? Why do anything? I understand injuries, but this team is doing what we've done the past 4 years.
    Posted by bobbysu[/QUOTE]

    I can't look that up as I am in work but I think we are a rather balanced team in general on paper. We run more than given credit for.

    I think the 3rd down back is a product of the feature back being so hard to truly find. A 3rd down back needs to be able to catch and catch well.

    The goal line back needs to be able to power the ball on short yards.

    Then we need the back to keep the feature backs legs fresh.

    The patriots had these three guys above but NO feature back and the truth is a real feature back makes the first two guys go away.

    Richardson is 5'9 228 pounds. He can catch very very well and run for power.
    Vereen is also larger than given credit for ( cant look it up ) and can also catch very very well.

    These two guys would be all we need. No need for Woodhead or Ridley ( we do have to keep insurance for injury tho )
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    Of course. It's been that way since 2007.  Why wouldn't a Ded Coordinator get his guys all gacked up to go after the guy who has it all (Brady)?

    The only reason why it was so explosive in 2007, is because NE went from driving Ford Tauruses to driving a Cadillac (Welker) and a Mercedes (Moss). 

    What's disturbing, is Brady blew out his leg, is still getting hurt every year enough to affect this style, and now he's older, but we still want to throw 40+ times, in a game against a good front 7?

    When will it end?  The Lloyds, Welkers, Hernandez and Gronk types should luxuries that you turn to SOMETIMES when you have to have it or to pull away in games, not as a constant base of your offense to the point your gameplan is irrelevant.

    We tell the team, every week (almost), that we're going to throw 60% of the time, minimum.  That ups the odds that the D, regardless of how bad, average or good it is, can actually slow our offense down.

    We did not move the ball past the 50 yard line before (right before half we finally did), against Miami in December.    Why is this not more disturbing to more fans?

    Scapegoating people like Ochocinco ws nothing more than an excuse for Brady and the offense.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]I think most of the opinions on here are really not well informed nor well thought out.
    Posted by ejb222[/QUOTE]

    LOL!

    We just lost a SB because we didn't really use our best RB (BJGE) or our wild card and explosive, rookie RB (Ridley).

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ejb222. Show ejb222's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : LOL! We just lost a SB because we didn't really use our best RB (BJGE) or our wild card and explosive, rookie RB (Ridley).
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    that may be part of it...but even still you are talking about game plan not caliber of player. And to be honest...not running BJGE is not the reason we lost the Super Bowl.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from quinzpatsfan. Show quinzpatsfan's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]We Trade Up for Richardson. You need more than one good back and Vereen and him will be a great pair. BB often surprises us, just when we are all coming to terms with the trade back approach he changes it up. I think that we have always desired a feature back but the price has been to prohibative or we just were not in position to land one. Now we are and the price is right. Mallet will be the big chip used to trade with Clev. at the 4 slot. They need a possible franchise QB ( talking Tannehill and this makes more sense for them ). Give them the talented QB while the fans still remember his college game and a year after the off field stuff has been washed away by a nice quiet run to the SB riding the pine for BB and Brady. We cash this chip, it takes: Mallet ( 3rd round pick last year ), our 27 or 31, and a 2nd. Thats my best guess on what we need to offer Clev to get them to enter serious negotiation. What free agent RB would offer better value than that? And as to Mallet, his value is as high as ever and Brady will be around to long to keep him on the pine as the hier apparent. We will lose him in a few years. We will cash that chip next year or the year after if not now. Oh ya, with Richardson there is always the added factor of Sabans approval at Bama.
    Posted by Asher77[/QUOTE]

    Asher just curious what makes you think Mallet has MORE value now than last year.  Not only did he never take a snap during the season but he was a healthy scratch most weeks. 

    Secondly what makes you think the Pats are going to trade Mallet when hoyer has a 2nd rd tender meaning if any team offers him a decent contract the pats will most likely let him walk, then they have no backup.  Finally you really think the pats are going to trade Mallet AND their (2) 1st round pics to move up to get a RB?  Really?  Doesn't this go against everything we seen in the pats drafting and player development philsophy over the past 10years.  OR is it just what you want to happen, which is fine, I want the pats to trade up to 15-20 or so and get Poe and use him at NT and VW at end, we all have ideas but I can't see BB ever doing your scenario.


     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]I think most of the opinions on here are really not well informed nor well thought out. You don't NEED a Pro Bowl Running back. You need Vareen and Ridley to step up and be effective at their games. I would take BJGE back or Ronnie Brown for cheap. But PB RB is a waste of money and draft pick(if you could actually pick one). Why gamble in the draft when you already have 2 gambles on the team? Why spend the money on a PB RB when a simple step up would be good enough to vastly improve a already devistating offense? A PB running back is not the answer. Defense and giving TB12 more touches is the answer.
    Posted by ejb222[/QUOTE]

    a CB is a gamble in the draft, a OLB is a gamble, what draft pick is not a gamble outside maybe OL.

    Defense needs to improve, very true. That is no reason the offense can not also be improved.

    The BIG question to ask:

    Is Trent Richardson a special RB. Is he Adrian Peterson, Emmit Smith, Barry Sanders, Curtis Martin. Tall order. Will he in a couple years be looked at as top 5 in the NFL.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : that may be part of it...but even still you are talking about game plan not caliber of player. And to be honest...not running BJGE is not the reason we lost the Super Bowl.
    Posted by ejb222[/QUOTE]


    Yes it was. 

    Brady's INT likely wouldn't have happened if we had, not to mention a few awful, stalled drives, especially in the 4th qtr. Even a FG on any of the last few drives would have sufficed, because we probably would have seen more gajbles on D by BB vs trying to play it conservative. If NY had scored earlier on their last drive, subsequently, all we would have needed was a FG to win it, instead of a hail mary.

    10 carries for a lead back is no different than Marshall Faulk getting 10 carries in SB 36. Of course Faulk was much, much better than BJGE is, but he is our lead back here. He earned the role and then wasn't used, in favor of Woodhead, the latter on the field more than BJGE.

    We absolutely lost two leads, 17-12 and 17-15, by ignoring running with our lead back. Woodhead is not a lead RB on any NFL team in this league. Offensive gamecalling failure.


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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : I don't know what you mean by your 1st question referencing a farm. As for the bigger name RB, I agree with you if that is what it takes to ween Brady off of his addictions and preferably throw 35 times or less in a game now. That's why I keep suggesting MJ Drew or even more affordably, Jonathan Stewart.  Apparently, they don't respect the ascension of BJGE, his consistency and the fact they don't really lose when BJGE is the lead back. It's almost like Brady and BB are bored so they want to play Russian Roullette by continuing to make the same ideological mistakes with offensive approach, to see if it somehow changes, finally. Obviously, this isn't true, but that's how it looks.   I don't really care how the problem is fixed, just get it fixed.  Passing more certainly isn't the solution. Lloyd helps a lot because he's a slam dunk fit due to the system and he runs all routes from all areas in the system. This makes a Revis not as good because you know they'll play man and you then know where Revis is.  That worked well in the last 2 games on the Jets man coverage/flood tactic, but really, BJGE's running was the ket on the Jets.  Even when it wasn't great in the second game this year in NY, the commitment to it, opened up that second half.  The fear is, if our D doesn't create multiple turnovers ina game like that, is it really 37-16?  No, it's not, just like the SB we just witnessed. Our offense needs another gear, so to speak. That (Lloyd running all of the routes and a threat deep) allows you to do some dictating, but it doesn't completely solve the problem either.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

     RUSTY... Your thought process on this issue are to be admired
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    Muz, I think the assumption is that a back like richardson would get more than 15 carries here.

    B.B. is no idiot. He knows you need balance, but with his H.O.F. qb back there, he is not handing to Benny 25 times a game. If Richardson turned out to be a stud, he would get more carries accordingly. We dont pass a lot because we dont like running. We pass a lot because we have # 12, #83, #87, #81 and at RB, we have 2 unkowns and a decent, undrafted guy.

    Even Brady admitted its about personell. Brady is old, he actually wants to run more, despite the made up agenda that Rusty talks about. B.B. was shown on camera telling O'bie to run it, Run it BIllY!!  Basically telling O;bie to abandon the run, and Rusty will not admit it. Keeps saying Brady is changing to run plays. Another foolish statement with no evidence.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : Here's what I would do: If Welker doesn't take a 7.5 mil per 3 year deal or a 2 year deal on the table at 9 per in guaranteed money, let him sign the tag and trade him to an NFC team that is willing give him what he wants. We'll take a 2013 1st rd pick, thanks very much. Love the guy, a classic Patriot player, but I don't want an unreasonable agent and player, like the Mankins situation, to handcuff the team moving forward. Next, go give Carolina their 2nd rd pick for Jonathan Stewart. Third, the money cleared by Welker's non-9.5 million and Matt Light's possible retirement, allows you to make one nice splash in FA. That would clear an additional 18 million dollars. People keep talking about Wimbley, so maybe that's something you look to do on defense.  Don't overpay, but this further gives you some leverage in spending. Maybe you work out a deal with your buddy, Jim Schwartz and Mayhew in Detroit They could use Welker and maybe need to clear some space by parting with Cliff Avril, who wants a long term extension. Hmm. Last, target OLB (3-4) in the draft, FS and WR.   Upshaw, Dennard and Sanu seem like very nice fits to me in the need spots.  Maybe Joe Adams at WR in Round 3.  Trade Hoyer for a 3rd or 4th rd pick as well. You increase camp competition and handle your weaker spots both in the draft and in FA/via trades.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Here is what I do:

    With Wes, go as high as 4/32, he is worth it. If not then it is probably best to just keep him franchised. If you do trade him I agree it must be to the NFC. I doubt he gets a 1st rd pick if some team is also going to be paying him big bucks, like 5/45 or something like that. The only way he signs with us for 3 years is if we make almost 20 million of it guaranteed b/c thats what 2 years franchised would be.

    Considering the franchise tag for him in 2013 is 11.4 million, some team can pick him up knowing he'd be there on a 1 year 9.6 deal or 2 years 20 deal. What is that worth? Probably a 3rd rd pick this year and a conditional '13 pick. I'd say that '13 pick is a 2nd if he is extended, a 3rd if he is tagged again (Brandon Marshall money/years/trade example) and a 4th if he reaches free agency.

    Is that worth what we lose in him not being here for 1-2 years with Brady's super bowl window closing and the chemistry they have? Not to me, although it would depend on Edelman/Gonzalez and maybe a draft pick being able to make-up his 105 catches and whatever we brought in with the $ savings.

    Should that be Avril? I don't see how paying a 4-3 DE 3x what Mark Anderson will make, or a few mil more than Wimbley will for slightly better production makes sense to me. If Bill's plan was to be a mostly 4-3 team then maybe... but he always wants to play a 3-4 and have multiple options. If this was Tamba Hali or LaMarr Woodley then sure.... not Avril.

    I would trade pick #63 for Jonathan Stewart in a heartbeat, he'd be perfect here, even if it was only for 1 year. He's like 5 years younger than Corey Dillon when we made that move. He doens't have to be a 20 carry 1,500 yard back... just be better than BJGE and be given 16-18 rushes a game with the backs as a whole getting hand-offs in the mid 20's. Like 55% pass 45% rush is the way to go.

    Stewart makes all of 1.3 million next year. You don't have to trade Welker to bring him in. Get a 3rd rd pick for Hoyer (as you said) and then you can have the room to trade for Stewart w/ 600k left over.

    restructure Light (asap, or tell him to make up his mind on retirement in the next week) and you can get Wimbley or keep Anderson.

    All that while keeping WW for 1-2 deep playoff runs or maybe more years depending on what type of paycut he is willing to take.

    Dennard at 48 would be a good CB to safety convert... not a starting NFL CB.

    Upshaw if he slips to us at 27 would be a solid pick b/c he is so strong, a winner and sound football guy overall, but the combine proved he is not an OLB, so it would be like getting Carter in his prime and force us into a 4-3 offense even more.

    With Stallworth, Llloyd and (for now) Ocho here there is NO WAY I go Sanu at 31, and even if he slips to 48 the defense needs so much help WR would be a waste there. I can see Joe Adams, a kick return guy who played with Mallett at Arkansas being a 3rd rd pick, or Broyles in the 4th, putting him on the 6 wk PUP, letting him learn from Branch before taking over for him.

    But please, unless its Konz or a BPA that slipped badly, I don't want to see ANY offensive players in the 1st 2 rounds.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Asher77. Show Asher77's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : Asher just curious what makes you think Mallet has MORE value now than last year.  Not only did he never take a snap during the season but he was a healthy scratch most weeks.  Secondly what makes you think the Pats are going to trade Mallet when hoyer has a 2nd rd tender meaning if any team offers him a decent contract the pats will most likely let him walk, then they have no backup.  Finally you really think the pats are going to trade Mallet AND their (2) 1st round pics to move up to get a RB?  Really?  Doesn't this go against everything we seen in the pats drafting and player development philsophy over the past 10years.  OR is it just what you want to happen, which is fine, I want the pats to trade up to 15-20 or so and get Poe and use him at NT and VW at end, we all have ideas but I can't see BB ever doing your scenario.
    Posted by quinzpatsfan[/QUOTE]

    We keep 1 first round pick.

    We do not trade Mallet until the draft. This is after we are assured Hoyer will still be here.

    Mallet in my mind has alot more value than last year. Last year there were a good number of prospective QB's and there was some media bias against him because of his percieved attitude, drugs ect... ( this may be very true ). He has all the talent and scouts still know that, a year after being in an NFL system behind a great orginization while making no waves is a big plus not a negative.

    If Cleveland wants a QB and I think they do why would they consider picking Tannehill over Mallet and additional picks?

    Mallet is the better prospect I think talent wise and you can sell him to a fan base way more that you could Hoyer. If Clev picked Tannehill I think fans would eb all over them for reaching there. if they got Mallet and extra security onthe pick, I can see them sellign that.


    We give Mallet, #27, and #48.
    We lose a backup QB who would not help the team unless Brady went down ( and we would be close to done then anyway )
    We swap first rounds picks.
    We lose a second.

    That 2nd round pick would be all we sacrafice from heping the team this next year reach the SB. A pick most of you will guess we trade till next year and cry about it.

    I think T.Rich ( if he is that good and I think so ) is a bigger plus for next years team over whatever defensive player you wanted to select at #27, thats the question.

    Who do you draft next year at 27 and 48 that will win us the SB against the Giants with a larger degree of certainty than Richardson will. Secondly, if Brady were to go down or retire in 5 years, a real true PB RB is huge to have ( as well as a top D of course but it is easier to find 11 good guys than 1 great RB )
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : Yes it was.  Brady's INT likely wouldn't have happened if we had, not to mention a few awful, stalled drives, especially in the 4th qtr. Even a FG on any of the last few drives would have sufficed, because we probably would have seen more gajbles on D by BB vs trying to play it conservative. If NY had scored earlier on their last drive, subsequently, all we would have needed was a FG to win it, instead of a hail mary. 10 carries for a lead back is no different than Marshall Faulk getting 10 carries in SB 36. Of course Faulk was much, much better than BJGE is, but he is our lead back here. He earned the role and then wasn't used, in favor of Woodhead, the latter on the field more than BJGE. We absolutely lost two leads, 17-12 and 17-15, by ignoring running with our lead back. Woodhead is not a lead RB on any NFL team in this league. Offensive gamecalling failure.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Or they could have prevented the Giants from scoring on the last 2 drives of the last 2 superbowls and won them both. What your saying is an opinion. The latter is a fact.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    How does Mallett have more value now? Also, why would we want to trade a QB we're trying to develop who is more talented than Hoyer?

    I don't get the logic.  Brady is older and people need to be ready for the day he drops back for that 39th pass and his drilled and out for a while, if not for good.

    It's incredibly dumb to not care that Brady gets hurt in games he throws 40+ times, not care it's why we lose and then unload the guy we're trying to develop to replace him.

    That's NY Jets logic.

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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : Or they could have prevented the Giants from scoring on the last 2 drives of the last 2 superbowls and won them both. What your saying is an opinion. The latter is a fact.
    Posted by tompenny[/QUOTE]

    So, the greatest offense of all time in 2007 barely eeks out 14 points and that's good enough to win a SB? Since when?

    The Ice Bowl in 1967? LMAO

    Time to change out those Brady underoos, Tommy boy.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ejb222. Show ejb222's posts

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    This isn't Madden. Seriously weigh your real world options. You're not going to draft Adrianne Peterson late first round. And not only that...you're certainly not going to get Adrianne Peterson numbers with the way this offense is structured. And I'm not talking about Pass first. I'm talking about BB using packages. BJGE wasn't used against the Giants because he thought Woodhead provided the best matchup. Again it's scheme, not player caliber. Fact of the matter is that the Pats are not going to burn a 1st round pick on a RB. Maybe if BB thought he was a real game changer that the team could be shaped around and some how lost both his RB picks from last year. It's absolutely obsurd for the leagues best offense to draft a RB in the first round with 2 young guys how could be better then BJGE and a defense that needs help. Especially since our league leading offense was already improved upon with free agents.

    2012 - free agent RB or maybe 3rd rounder...no way 1st rounder. If you truely dissagree, lay up a wager...but it's not going to happen.

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

    Re: What can we do at Running Back?

    In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What can we do at Running Back? : Here is what I do: With Wes, go as high as 4/32, he is worth it. If not then it is probably best to just keep him franchised. If you do trade him I agree it must be to the NFC. I doubt he gets a 1st rd pick if some team is also going to be paying him big bucks, like 5/45 or something like that. The only way he signs with us for 3 years is if we make almost 20 million of it guaranteed b/c thats what 2 years franchised would be. Considering the franchise tag for him in 2013 is 11.4 million, some team can pick him up knowing he'd be there on a 1 year 9.6 deal or 2 years 20 deal. What is that worth? Probably a 3rd rd pick this year and a conditional '13 pick. I'd say that '13 pick is a 2nd if he is extended, a 3rd if he is tagged again (Brandon Marshall money/years/trade example) and a 4th if he reaches free agency. Is that worth what we lose in him not being here for 1-2 years with Brady's super bowl window closing and the chemistry they have? Not to me, although it would depend on Edelman/Gonzalez and maybe a draft pick being able to make-up his 105 catches and whatever we brought in with the $ savings. Should that be Avril? I don't see how paying a 4-3 DE 3x what Mark Anderson will make, or a few mil more than Wimbley will for slightly better production makes sense to me. If Bill's plan was to be a mostly 4-3 team then maybe... but he always wants to play a 3-4 and have multiple options. If this was Tamba Hali or LaMarr Woodley then sure.... not Avril. I would trade pick #63 for Jonathan Stewart in a heartbeat, he'd be perfect here, even if it was only for 1 year. He's like 5 years younger than Corey Dillon when we made that move. He doens't have to be a 20 carry 1,500 yard back... just be better than BJGE and be given 16-18 rushes a game with the backs as a whole getting hand-offs in the mid 20's. Like 55% pass 45% rush is the way to go. Stewart makes all of 1.3 million next year. You don't have to trade Welker to bring him in. Get a 3rd rd pick for Hoyer (as you said) and then you can have the room to trade for Stewart w/ 600k left over. restructure Light (asap, or tell him to make up his mind on retirement in the next week) and you can get Wimbley or keep Anderson. All that while keeping WW for 1-2 deep playoff runs or maybe more years depending on what type of paycut he is willing to take. Dennard at 48 would be a good CB to safety convert... not a starting NFL CB. Upshaw if he slips to us at 27 would be a solid pick b/c he is so strong, a winner and sound football guy overall, but the combine proved he is not an OLB, so it would be like getting Carter in his prime and force us into a 4-3 offense even more. With Stallworth, Llloyd and (for now) Ocho here there is NO WAY I go Sanu at 31, and even if he slips to 48 the defense needs so much help WR would be a waste there. I can see Joe Adams, a kick return guy who played with Mallett at Arkansas being a 3rd rd pick, or Broyles in the 4th, putting him on the 6 wk PUP, letting him learn from Branch before taking over for him. But please, unless its Konz or a BPA that slipped badly, I don't want to see ANY offensive players in the 1st 2 rounds.
    Posted by rameakap[/QUOTE]


    1. We run a 4-3 and still some 3-4, so Avril would be an ideal candidate to do what you're doing with Anderson, except Avril is better than Anderson. It's just an idea, anyway, but adding an Avril and a Courtney Upshaw in the draft ins't appealing to you as pieces to build around?

    2. Only way I would go 4 years with Welker is if it's a team option. That's it. 3 is the max for me. Welker is 31, dude.



     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share