cstjohn17

Other than the Lloyd, I agree with the approach. The cost of keeping the free agents is too high, similar production can be found for less money. The savings can be applied to pass defends (DE, CB, S, interior pass rushing DT)

Deus Irae

Please list all the currently available (or listed as to be available) WRs who's production is similar to Welker's and will be a signing for less money.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

TomPatriot

I can't. The point is not that they are more accomplished, but that the Pats are deeper in that area than many others. If some veterans can't be re-signed for the kind of money they want because you are paying say, Talib, it makes more sense not to re-sign someone who is a part-time player and plays at a position where you have depth.

Vereen looks ready to take this role. He played well against Houston in the playoffs. I'm not at practice everyday watching him, but his route running looks sharper to me and he's using his body better when he has to pass block.

PatsWickedPissah

That's not irrational. Me, I have a hard time cutting a guy who has been Faulk like clutch in big games for a one game wonder. Faulk's performances were key in all SB playoff runs.

BTW I'm a homer who sees upside potential in Vereen & Demps. Potential is the word.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

AndyJohnson

Woodhead hasn't made the clutch plays Faulk did though.

TomPatriot

Well said, but looking at the whole picture isn't a situational RB the place where you let a veteran go to groom younger players who already have some experience in your offensive sets, as opposed to your starting right (and versatile) tackle or your best and biggest CB or your two best WRs?

PatsWickedPissah

He's made big plays. Clutch plays. Not his fault that in the game context the QB, the OL or the D had playoff failures that diminished his plays in reverse looking glass context.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

TomPatriot

BTW, I like Woodhead. He has guts and quickness and he plays smart.

I can't wait to watch Demps.

Deus Irae

Doesn't this question really hinge on how much money Woodhead holds out for? As a 5th year veteran, the minimum is only something like $715,000, which is only about $300,000 more than the rookie minimum.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

AndyJohnson

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying I haven't seen him make a lot of great clutch plays in big games.
He's a fine player, and makes plays, I just don't see anything in his performance that stands out as overwhelming me clutch, or radically better in a big game.
Ultimately he is a role player, and at a role player paycheck, I'd love to have him, but we have a player on the roster who looks like he would be able to assume this role, so contract demands might make him expendable.