What should BB have done about the WR position.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    Kept Welker.  Could have offered a little more, the bonuses were a joke.

    Kept Edelman.

    Offered Sanders more $, and give away the 3rd.  would have been worth it.

    If no on Sanders then made a play on Brian Hartline.

    Brought in Heyward-Bey for a serious look.

    Taken a quality WR in the 1st round instead of trading it away.

    If set on getting rid of Welker then I guess Josh McD had to have Amendola.  Looks like they could have got away with just signing Edelman and used the Welker/Amendola $ to bring in more. 

    Still could have signed a couple of the rook WR's they have now.  Nobody else was going to take them.

     

    ---------------------------------------------

    "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anybody else."  Text received by Tom Brady from Kurt Warner after Ravens loss.


    view my Patriots photoshops at patsfanfotoshop.tumblr.com





     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Fact, an oft injured Vereen replaced a versatile and reliable Woody,, Not playing,(surprise) which means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

     

     

    Why don't you go here and tell me which rookies took Woody's snaps.  I can't seem to find them amongst the names Ridley, Washington and Blount.  You really do like to make shyte up.

    Well Since I'm talking about Woody's snaps as a RECEIVER, one of the ROOKIE receivers, obviously did, since Vereen, who was retained to take his spot, is IR'd.

    Dum.  The Backs (receptions) were taken by the recievers because none of the other backs can catch.  Ridley?  30% catch completions, ly?   That eliminated those plays for the most part.   Devlin?  a couple?

    1 TE throw!   Those were also taken by the receivers because there aren't any TE's to throw to.  That eliminated that option because there are no TE's to throw to except Hooman. They went to someone, right?

    Talk about one dimensional. pfft.

    That basically leaves 3 rooks and Edelman & Hooman, to take woody/Vereens snaps and Gronk/hern/fells's snaps  and welkers/amadola's snaps, and Lloyd/branche's snaps, because none of them are playing .  The snaps are going to someone right?

    The only guys out there are Thompkins, Dobson, a mystery RB, and Edelman and hooman. RIGHT?

    Awesome roster mgt.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Big, tough boy, with BB's face, photo shopped.  Huh?  Are ya? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

     


    You're real tough aren't you.  Talking internet smack with no facts to back you up so make some lame joke about my avatar.  LMAO @ U.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to FrankDooley's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Fact, an oft injured Vereen replaced a versatile and reliable Woody,, Not playing,(surprise) which means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

     

     

     

     

    Why don't you go here and tell me which rookies took Woody's snaps.  I can't seem to find them amongst the names Ridley, Washington and Blount.  You really do like to make shyte up.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Big, tough boy, with BB's face, photo shopped.  Huh?  Are ya? 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     


    You're real tough aren't you.  Talking internet smack with no facts to back you up so make some lame joke about my avatar.  LMAO @ U.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Just think you're 100 times more intelligent than he is and you're 20 years younger than that fat and balding middle aged turd who has an unhealthy Brady man lust that is beyond creepy.

     

    I'd say you are doing ok.

    [/QUOTE]

    That actually means  that you are the fat, bald and middle aged 20% dumber one....     since you falsely transfer all your inadequacies to others, to deflect from your own pitiful existance.

    We are on to you.  All of us!!!  Even the MODS!!!!!

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to FrankDooley's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Fact, an oft injured Vereen replaced a versatile and reliable Woody,, Not playing,(surprise) which means rookies are taking snaps, because that's all they have.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Why don't you go here and tell me which rookies took Woody's snaps.  I can't seem to find them amongst the names Ridley, Washington and Blount.  You really do like to make shyte up.

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Big, tough boy, with BB's face, photo shopped.  Huh?  Are ya? 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     


    You're real tough aren't you.  Talking internet smack with no facts to back you up so make some lame joke about my avatar.  LMAO @ U.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Just think you're 100 times more intelligent than he is and you're 20 years younger than that fat and balding middle aged turd who has an unhealthy Brady man lust that is beyond creepy.

     

     

    I'd say you are doing ok.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That actually means  that you are the fat, bald and middle aged 20% dumber one....     since you falsely transfer all your inadequacies to others, to deflect from your own pitiful existance.

     

    We are on to you.  All of us!!!  Even the MODS!!!!!

    [/QUOTE]


    PUT HIM ON IGNORE!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    We have over $10mil in space right now. There's room for everyone he listed and still have enough cap for in season signings

     


    People keep quoting this number.  Some people even quote higher numbers like 13 or 14 million.  I have never seen a source with either of those numbers. 

     

    The NFLPA has the Pats at 7.4 million.

     

     

     

     http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/cap-hit/

    [/QUOTE]

    13 million in more dead money?

    Wow.  AWESOME ROSTER MGT.  IT WILL BE ANOTHER 20M NEXT YEAR. 

    BOY, SUCKS TO THINK THAT 13MILL COULD HAVE GONE TO SOME RECEIVER OR DB TALENT OR A NEW GM.   

    What a waste of Kraft's money and cap space. I figure he's pretty po'd right about now.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    I wouldn't change a thing. Welker left for LESS money than he was offered by the Pats, good bye Lloyd, I like the picks of Dobson and Boyce, adn Edelamn is what we thought he was. If was going to make any change at all I would bring back Deion Branch as a WR to metor and coach the younger kids not take their snaps.

    "Giggedy, Giggedy!"

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     [QUOTE]

    Belichick takes the long view, not the popular view. I get that most think they should take advantage of Brady while he is there and surround him with all manner of expensive toys. I just don't think that's not how this guy thinks. He will do it by trading if he can find the right guys and the right trading partners, like Moss/Welker in '07. But he's not going to bring in a Mike Wallace and pay him that kind of money, ever.

    The long view means he'd always rather let a guy go a year early than a year late. It means he will not spend on free agents, generally because: 1. they're rarely worth it, and 2. he doesn't want to upset the salary/ego balance of his own players.

    He has no problem paying guys like Wilfork and Mankins and so on, but he'll never do that with a player from another team. He made an exception with Adalius and it didn't work out.

    He's had success bring in scrap heap guys (Rodney, others) and he will keep doing it, even if most don't work out. They're low cost, low risk. 

    Obviously, the plan for pass catchers involved Gronk and Hernandez and a couple of veteran guys to go with the new draft picks he wanted to bring in. Probably planned on keeping Welker but not sure how broken up he was to lose him. I also don't think they went to the trouble of signing Sanders if they thought Pitt would match. But again, they have their structure with FAs and they're not going to veer much from that.

    Stuff happens and the plan is adjusted. They'll figure it out.  

     [/UNQUOTE]

    About as well reasoned a discussion as you'll find of the approach BB takes: one that has proven itself to be successful over the long term.  For the life of me I can't understand why anyone with a sense of understanding of how the Pats do business is surpised or, quite frankly, expected anything different. 

     

    I'm also rather amused at the criticism of the young wide receivers.  I specifically recall outrage in this forum over BB not drafting wideouts and how how old the wide receiver corps had become. 

    As I've said before, the Pats (Kraft and BB) do business this way and it's not going to change any time soon.  If you don't like it you have the following choices:

    1) Remain a Pats and continue to whine;

    2) Find another team that does buiness the way you like it;

    3) Recognize that what we have as Pats fans most fans of other NFL teams lust after and then get a grip.

    Have a sterling day, all.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to expertmike's comment:

     

    > How well did that receiving corp do in the superbowl, not very. They became the Manning > Colts, great regular season and fantasy football numbers but choke on the big stage.

    The Pats passing game got them into the superbowl.  Bad joke to blame the receiving corp or Brady for the loss.  How about never developing a running game that can get a 1st down when they need one.  Or a defense that can never stop an opponent when they really need to.  To blame Welker after the hits he's subjected himself to for the team, shameful.

     

    > Ah, we won't call BB out because he didn't diminish the team. He brought in more talented > rookies with greater upside to compliment TB for the rest of his career. Now comes the fun > part of watching them grow.

    Going from #1 to #24 is diminished. An objective measure.  I hope these guys do have huge upside. But that always takes time. Especially when BB/TB run a very complex system. It's irresponsible and not fair to the other players to assume these kids can thrive in that situation, especially when two of them are UDFA (read: nobody else wanted).

      

    > Yes amazing how that happened, three rookies beat out all the vets they let go. And > > those rookies are bigger and faster than the vets they replaced. And on top of that they are > better at stretching the field than the vets were. They also don't turn turtle as soon as they > catch the ball and get YAC!

    "Beating out all the vets" is a BB decision. What we're debating is the validity of his decisions.  You can't use the fact that he made a decision as a self reinforcing affirmation of it's correctness.   Sound like Bush, another decider.

     

    Almost forgot to mention how not going after big name receivers allowed the Pats to build one of the best D's in the league. I'm surprised an expert can't see all of that.

    > Don't see the connection. First, Pats have very close to the same defense they had last year.   No new major spend on defense that effects the cap.  Second, not suggesting they go after big name receivers.  Suggesting they keep or get experienced, affordable, receivers - and they have the money for that.   This is not a mutually exclusive option - they had and could have kept parts of a very successful receiving corp and could have phased in young talented guys.  Instead, roster spots went to 6 running backs.  

    What is needed is a real GM to provide checks & balances.  

     

     

    BTW are you really Ron Borges?




    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not blaming Welker, just stating the FACT that the Welker centric passing attack didn't work. It was too easy for good D's to defend. Don't get me wrong, Welker is a warrior and a great receiver that will get you lots of fantasy points. But, when the  pressure was high, he dropped balls he normally caught.

    Going from #1 to #24 is not diminished. Going 0-2 is diminished.

     

    BB is a much better judge of talent than you or me. He has never kept anyone that was of lesser talent. And we aren't debating anything, to debate you need facts and so far, we are working on opinion. Are you a die hard Democrat or something? I ask because, when you come right down to it, he was the decider. Not good english but very, very true.

    About the defense, if you can't understand that you have watched a D get rebuilt without major cap hits and and can't understand that is a good thing then there is no hope for you undestanding how to build a team in the cap era.

    Everything you said contradicts everthing you've said. You want Brady to have big name receivers but you don't want BB to go out and get big name receivers. While getting those receivers you want major cap hits on D too even though the D is top ten or top five this year without the big cap hit. You want big name receivers and cap hit D AND spend more cap dollars on the running game. This isn't fantasy football.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_4160947. Show user_4160947's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    woulda, shoulda, coulda............  That horse is out of the barn.  Nobody really knew that AH would self destruct.  Or, that Gronk would have back surgery.  That left us in a pickle.  The coaches, BB, and TB just have to adjust.  I keep reading about how complex this offense is.  Simplify it!  TB has to get his head in the game and forget about past misdeeds.  BTW, I think he could go through his progressions better.  In the olden days, you could see him go through 3 reads before releasing the ball.  Since Woody is gone and Vareen is on the shelf, why can't they try screens with Leon?  He was once a very dangerous scatback.  This would be a wrinkle and not the focal point of the offense.  Finally, I wonder what is happening with Boyce?  I figured he was the going to replace WW because is fast and quick.  Can't they try to get him in space on a slant or a quicker hitter wheel route?  I do like that TB has thrown the ball down the field.  That will pay big dividends as the season goes along.

    Once last word of caution.  Tampa has a very, very good run defense.  This is not the time to be a smashmouth football team. 

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

     

    Lots of silly fights to no purpose here.  In football, results are what matters, and so far the offense has not looked as good as last year's.  That's the bottom line, and there's simply no denying that.  Now, things may change as the rookies gain experience and injured players come back.  I personally like all the new rookies.  I was never fully happy with an offense so dependent on TEs and slots and so weak on traditional WRs, as we were last year and really since Moss left.  Thompkins, Dobson, and even Boyce have the speed and size to play downfield and that is something we've desperately needed to have a more complete offense that can challenge any part of the field.  Overall, as I've said before, I'm very happy that these young receivers are here and getting the opportunity.  Very reassuring in the Jets game was just how open they were downfield.  They need to catch better and run the right routes, but they have the physical skills to get separation all over the field--and that's something our X receivers (the few we've had) have lacked.  

     

    If you're going to criticize BB, I think you can make a legitimate argument that he should have done more a year or two ago to begin acquiring longer term solutions at wideout.  Lloyd ended up not being a particulary good choice--he was just a stopgap--and there really hasn't been much in the way of either youth or a quality, younger veteran on the team who could provide continuity at an important position (personally, I thought Pierre Garcon would have been a nice free agent last year for the Pats).  As someone pointed out, there are lots of other priorities too, and the constraints of the salary cap, the draft, and player availability limit how much you can address each year.  So WR may have necessarily fallen by the wayside a bit as other positions were addressed.  Still, it's a position that has languished for a while . . . in part due to weak picks like Chad Jackson, Brandon Tate, and Taylor Price.  Now BB certainly was planning to have Hernandez on the roster too, which would have allowed them to continue to play the successful short game until the rookie wideouts developed.  The loss of Hernandez certainly threw a monkey wrench into BB's plans.  At the same time, the team's thinness at receiver left it vulnerable to the loss of a single key player like Gronk or Hernandez.  And the risk increased when BB let the dependable Welker go and replaced him with an injury-prone Amendola.  I agree with many that Amendola maybe has more potential and versatility than Welker (though I think people are unfairly downplaying Welker's skills and contributions simply because he's no longer here).  I'm not as convinced as some that Edelman is an "equal" replacement for Welker--I don't think Edelman runs routes as well as Welker, and through his career he's been inconsistent in getting separation and making catches.  Edelman is a nice back-up to Amendola/Welker at slot, but he's still a back-up quality player there. 

     

    The bottom line, though, is simple:  so far, this offense is not producing at nearly the level offenses of the past two years have produced. There are reasons for optimism.  With better health and some progression from one or two of the rookies the offense may again be potent.  But right now, this is not looking like a very good offense, and it's nowhere near the quality of offenses like the Broncos'.   BB made a very big and risky bet trying to rebuild the WR position in one year. That bet may eventually pay off, but so far the results have not been good and the future is still unclear. You can look at the glass half-full or half-empty.  Either way, it's objectively only half a glass out there. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    In response to stillgridlocked's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The Pats have a limited window to take advantage of Brady, does everyone agree on that?

    The future is now because once TB is gone this value pick thing isn't likely to get a hall of fame draftee in the 6th round.

    When Brady retires BB will be at the social security office after also retiring.

     



    You realize he probably has at least 5 years left right? You also realize what the Pats had wasn't working right?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I doubt he plays another 5 years and when you say at least how many QBs play past 40? None that have any pride left.   Even if its 5 years THAT is a limited window.

     

    So how are these changes working out for you right now? They barely scraped by two of the worst teams in football.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    I don't know how different it should have been handled. IMO this isn't so much a WR problem, as a TE and RB problem. No Woodhead, no Vereen, no Gronk, and no AH means that Brady only has wide receivers to throw to at the moment, because Ridley isn't a factor in the passing game.

    It makes the offense incredibly onedimensional, because there is not even the illusion of throwing to a back or a TE. If it is a passing situation, it will go to a WR. The Jets, by shutting Ridley down easily in the running game as well, could focus on Edelman and the rookies.

    In essence Edelman covers what would otherwise have been Welkers'/Amendolas' snaps. But that means that the rookies are asked to pick up the targets for Lloyd, Branch, Gronk, AH and Woodhead. That is a tall order.

    I would have loved to see Welker stay, but they ended up with Amendola and with Edelman as the backup if it should be necessary - which it is now. They figured they could let Vereen take Danny W's snaps, and it worked in itself, but there is no real backup, which hurts them now.

    But the real killer of course is the absence of Gronk and AH. Gronk is irreplaceable and IMO they figured Vereen has the position flexibility to take over some of AH's targets as well. I think they figured that they could get by the first couple of weeks without Gronk, and then he would return. I don't think they could have done much different regarding the TE position than what they have done.

    But substituting LLoyd and Branch with Dobson/Boyce/Thompkins was the right move. Branch was - sad to say it - done. Lloyd mystifies me somewhat, because he had good production last year. But then again, he was allegedly just too weird. Lloyd and Branch combined for 90 receptions last year, or 5,6 pr. game. Thompkins and Dobson have 4,5 receptions pr. game between them. Each are on pace for 48 receptions, and if they can make that, they will have exceeded my expectations.

    In the end, there is one thing BB should have done, and that was to keep Woodhead as insurance for Vereen.

    A final thought. Through 2 games the WR's average 19,5 receptions a game, vs. 14,3 receptions last year. The lack of production in the passing game is with the TE's and RB's, not the WR's

     

    Supra societatem nemo

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     For the life of me I can't understand why anyone with a sense of understanding of how the Pats do business is surpised or, quite frankly, expected anything different. 

     I'm also rather amused at the criticism of the young wide receivers.  I specifically recall outrage in this forum over BB not drafting wideouts and how how old the wide receiver corps had become. 

    As I've said before, the Pats (Kraft and BB) do business this way and it's not going to change any time soon.  If you don't like it you have the following choices:

    1) Remain a Pats and continue to whine;

    2) Find another team that does buiness the way you like it;

    3) Recognize that what we have as Pats fans most fans of other NFL teams lust after and then get a grip.

    Have a sterling day, all.



    Careful ATJ, if you make a lot of sense here, people get all flustered!! LOL

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to tanbass' comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     For the life of me I can't understand why anyone with a sense of understanding of how the Pats do business is surpised or, quite frankly, expected anything different. 

     I'm also rather amused at the criticism of the young wide receivers.  I specifically recall outrage in this forum over BB not drafting wideouts and how how old the wide receiver corps had become. 

    As I've said before, the Pats (Kraft and BB) do business this way and it's not going to change any time soon.  If you don't like it you have the following choices:

    1) Remain a Pats and continue to whine;

    2) Find another team that does buiness the way you like it;

    3) Recognize that what we have as Pats fans most fans of other NFL teams lust after and then get a grip.

    Have a sterling day, all.



    Careful ATJ, if you make a lot of sense here, people get all flustered!! LOL

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry, tb; there I go again.  What was I thinking?

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    Ok I gave my plan before the draft so here it is again:

    Sign Welker and Amendola

    Sign Sanders to a deal (yes we have the cap to sign both Welker and Sanders)

    Draft a WR, this means they could have drafted either Dobson or Boyce but Sanders 3rd round pick means you don't get both

    You could still have Thompkins in this scenerio

    Currently WR core would be:

    #1 Welker

    #2 Amendola (injured)

    #3 Sanders

    #4 Thompkins

    #5 Dobson/Boyce

    #6 Slater

    Edelman is out but Sanders who is more durable takes his place. And with Welker Brady still has a familiar face to throw to. However, if you want Edelman on the team simply remove Bolden at this point. He hasn't provided anything at this point or White at LB considering the depth we have at that position. These moves would still get a couple of rooks on the team to bring them along as eventual replacements, was do able given our current cap situation, and would be a much stronger WR core than what we currently have


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Stealing all my stuff I see. LMAO



    What can I say?  You've demonstrated it won't get you censored on this board when just about anything else will.  Well except for dumbkoff, but I'll let you keep that one.  That being said you're hardly the first person on an internet message board to say LMAO @ U.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    Ok I gave my plan before the draft so here it is again:

    Sign Welker and Amendola

    Sign Sanders to a deal (yes we have the cap to sign both Welker and Sanders)

    Draft a WR, this means they could have drafted either Dobson or Boyce but Sanders 3rd round pick means you don't get both

    You could still have Thompkins in this scenerio

    Currently WR core would be:

    #1 Welker

    #2 Amendola (injured)

    #3 Sanders

    #4 Thompkins

    #5 Dobson/Boyce

    #6 Slater

    Edelman is out but Sanders who is more durable takes his place. And with Welker Brady still has a familiar face to throw to. However, if you want Edelman on the team simply remove Bolden at this point. He hasn't provided anything at this point or White at LB considering the depth we have at that position. These moves would still get a couple of rooks on the team to bring them along as eventual replacements, was do able given our current cap situation, and would be a much stronger WR core than what we currently have


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus



    OK so the Patriots did try to do those things, except for the "both" welker and Amedola part. (two receivers that have an extremely similar skill set) Yet they did sign two receivers that have a similar skill set in Amendola and Edelman, after not being able to get Welker)

    They tried for Welker 1st and for Sanders.

    So according to your plan you actually should be happy with what the Patriots did as it is indeed very similar to what you suggested they try and do. No?

    How does the rest of the draft go in your scenario?  I am assuming it is the same except the Pats are losing Boyce in the 4th and taking Duron Harmon in the 4th instead of 3rd(that they would no longer have), if still there.

     

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    Eng, understood.  I would offer the following:

    *Welker will only sign if he wants to - he didn't want to

    *The Pats made a run at Sanders at the price they wanted to pay - it didn't work - they made their choice

    *Cap space - kindly complete this sentence:  The Patriots multi-year plan for reconciling personnel and the salary cap is__________________________________________.

    If the answer to the last point is anything but 'I don't know' then it is nothing more than pure speculation.

    I'll tell you what I speculate:  The $5 mil they carried over from last year is intended to deal with the vagaries of the 2013 season.  The $7 mil they have from this year is either to be carried forward for use next year or used to sign current players they wish to retain.  If carried forward to next year they will use it to deal with the vagaries of 2014 or combine with other cap space for free agent signings.  The bottom line, however, is that I have no idea - and neither does anyone else unless they are in the Pats inner circle.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    WELKER, LLoyd, Branch,  Woody and (3 TE's replaced with one rookie FA)  They had 4 TE's last year.  All gone except hooman and the injured Gronk.  Is Sudfeld , an UDFA ROOKIE, a suitable replacement for all that loss?    For 3 missing TE vets?   pfft  Think man!  Who is replacing the receivers and their catches and the 3 missing TE's and their catches and the woodhead an his catches,.   SNAP!   ROOKIES!

    3 injury prone players replaced with...... wait for it.....ROOKIES!  4 rookie receivers don't make a team unless they replace SOME ONE.  But they shouldn't be relied on to START!!!

    And what happens when one of them is injured?  Like Sudfeld leaving only one TE with his booboo.  1 TE, 3 or 4 rooks and edelman (till he's gone)?  Wonder how that Rutgers D is gonna help then?  What position did stevie B play, oh snap.  Maybe he can fill in.

     As of right now, those rookies have replaced  and are taking snaps in place of.....Welker gone, Hern gone, Fells gone, Woody gone, Branch gone,    BECAUSE... Amadola Injured,   Gronk injured,  Vereen injured.  Waiting on Edelman, who I love, but let's face it, accident waiting to happen.  Boyce replaces him.  ugh. and a big, W T F

    Is this not understandable to you?  Learn the game!



    You have lost it.  I quoted you in your OP whining about BB dismantling the record setting O and expecting rookies to take their place.  You said nothing about injured players.  You are a liar.  The only guys BB expected rookies to replace were Lloyd, Branch and Fells.  Only Lloyd was more than a trivial component of the record setting O.  FACT.  BB had vets lined up to replace Welker and Woody.  Hooman has been filling in for Gronk who is returning shortly anyways.  Whether you like it or not it is a FACT that Sudfeld is replacing Hernandez.  Every single f'ing publication about this guy during the offseason was how he would play Hernandez's role of "move TE".  The Patriots didn't dump Hernandez.  HE WAS ARRESTED AND INCARCERATED.  So for the last freaking time you can't say BB dismantled the record setting O and expected rookies to step up for all the major components that were lost.  IT IS FALSE.  He expected rookies to replace guys like Branch and Fells WHICH IS HARDLY A RIDICULOUS EXPECTATION and vets like Amendola, Edelman and Vereen to fill in for Welker and Woody.  The Hernandez loss threw a wrench into the entire equation.  The fact that you can say with a straight face that BB expected the rookies to replace Branch and Fells and then say he expected the rookies to carry the record setting offense after how little Branch or Fells did last season is laughable.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Lots of silly fights to no purpose here.  



    If you want to criticize BB for letting Welker walk and replacing him with Danny fine.  If you want to criticize him for booting Lloyd fine (although no one was really broken up about it when he got the boot from what I remember), but I'm not going to stand here and let pezz make shyte up and say that BB dismantled the top rated passing game and replaced them with rookies who he expected to take their place.  It is false and is the same type of exaggeration he has been peddling around here in his sensationalistic posts for years.  This is the same guy that said we had a bottom ranked defense for 7 years in 2012 and then actually tried to defend himself when I pointed out that we've had a top 10 ranked defense in terms of points and yards all the way through 2009. 

    These are the facts.  BB let 3 major components of the passing game go this year.  Welker, Lloyd and Woody.  He had vets lined up to replace 2 of them.  Some are injured which is why the kids are getting more playing time.  That doesn't mean he expected the f'ing rookies to replace them.  Plus Hernandez wasn't expected to be gone.  End of story.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Eng, understood.  I would offer the following:

    *Welker will only sign if he wants to - he didn't want to

    *The made a run at Sanders at the price they wanted to pay - it didn't work - they made their choice

    *Cap space - kindly complete this sentence:  The Patriots multi-year plan for reconciling personnel and the salary cap is__________________________________________.

    If the answer to the last point is anything but 'I don't know' then it is nothing more than pure speculation.

    I'll tell you what I speculate:  The $5 mil they carried over from last year is intended to deal with the vagaries of the 2013 season.  The $7 mil they have from this year is either to be carried forward for use next year or used to sign current players they wish to retain.  If carried forward to next year they will use it to deal with the vagaries of 2014 or combine with other cap space for free agent signings.  The bottom line, however, is that I have no idea - and neither does anyone else unless they are in the Pats inner circle.



    You have to spend the $7mil first before you can touch the $5mil from last year. Small problem with your statement there. So either they will use the cap to resign their own (which in no way helps this year and Brady won't be around forever) or they don't extend anyone and use the carry over next year which hopefully wouldn't turn out to be the same way they used it this year.

    As for your question nether of us know the answer because nether of us are in the FO so it's a loaded question. I might as well ask you Kraft is wearing what color underwear and that will effect his decision to cut Brady after week 3 how? But if you want a real answer ask my opinion to which I would state they plan on extending some players but not enough that the $5mil they carried over from last year will be touched and they will carry some over into next year as a result (thinking <$3mil). They will justify it saying they spen close to the cap $123mil but not mention that they were allowed to carry up to $128mil this year, as well as saying they needed to carry some over to cover the cost of dead money that accured after releasing Hernandez. Of which shouldn't even be a factor because that happened after the first FA period of which is where the most affective moves would have been made.

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     


    OK so the Patriots did try to do those things, except for the "both" welker and Amedola part. (two receivers that have an extremely similar skill set) Yet they did sign two receivers that have a similar skill set in Amendola and Edelman, after not being able to get Welker)

     

    They tried for Welker 1st and for Sanders.

    So according to your plan you actually should be happy with what the Patriots did as it is indeed very similar to what you suggested they try and do. No?

    How does the rest of the draft go in your scenario?  I am assuming it is the same except the Pats are losing Boyce in the 4th and taking Duron Harmon in the 4th instead of 3rd(that they would no longer have), if still there.

     



    Nope, if you went to a car dealership because you needed a new car and the sticker price was $20k and said you'd walk out if you paid anything more than $15k and they tell you to walk did you do anything to begin with? Anyone can toss an offer to anyone but if you are serious then you make sure you obtain the pieces you actually go after to get if you have the ability. If they didn't have the ability or it would have hurt them to offer more to get those pieces that's a different story but when you have the means and you short change looking for the deal instead of the player than no that's not acceptable. It's like what they did with Samuel, how many resources and cap space did they spend trying to replace him? In the end they spent more trying to get the deal then they would have if they signed him in the first place.

    As for the draft scenerio well you are essentially replacing Boyce with Sanders. I know Boyce was an early 4th pick but do you honestly believe Harmon (Pats pick if they got Sanders) wouldn't have been there at Boyce's spot?

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

     

    Obviously he should have paid Welker more than anyone else on the team because who else deserves that kind of $$$, you know, someone who drops passes in the clutch and can be chased down by anyone unless he has 20 yards to go for a TD and a ten yard lead on the closest defender...not to mention being a free spirit which he loves to "throw in BB's face"... Yeah, right..

    If he was so dang good why didn't he get $$$ offers more than what NE offered him? From even 1 measley NFL team? With all those teams out the3re in need of a "reliable" slot receiver not 1 other team offered him more than the Pats? That tells you all you need to know...

    Lloyd? An oddball, almost a mental case, pure and simple...how do we know? It started to leak out LAST season...

    New receivers? It takes time for most rookies, especially in TB's system...Dobson missed half of camp, so did Boyce, both with injuries...Thompkins was an undrafted FA, wasn;t likely to make the team...he's done fairly well, IMO.

    What should they have done? Precisely what they did...

    If ya got a problem with that, go grab the tylenol bottle and STFU!

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    I haven't read each post in this thread but I don't think back at draft time and prior to June BB had any idea he would have one of his best players in jail.    

    If they weather this early storm without Gronk and Amendola they should be fine.   But is Jake Ballard worse than the other options at TE right now?   How bad was he in pre-season?   Not recovered from kne injury yet?

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

    Re: What should BB have done about the WR position.

    Eng, I just took a look at a pdf of the CBA.  Here's what I found under Article 13, Section 6(b)(v) of the CBA:  

    Carrying Over Room. A Club may “carry over” Room from one League Year to the following League Year by submitting notice in writing signed by the owner to the NFL no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of the next League Year indicating the maximum amount of Room that the Club wishes to carry over. The NFL shall promptly provide a copy of any such notice to the NFLPA. The amount of Room carried over will be adjusted downward based on the final Room available after the year-end reconciliation

    I'm happy to take you at your word that a team has to spend the current year cap space before it spends the carryover but can you educate me as to where I can find that in the CBA?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share