Aqib Talib and long term commitment - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

DocHoliday · 02-26-2013, 10:50 AM

I thought it was interesting that Bedsrd doesn't feel Arrington will be happy with slot corner money. Gotta wonder if the second CB the Pats draft is going to be Mathieu then. He'd be the slot replacement as well as the ST ace the Pats could use in a late round pick

ay-yo · 02-26-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

This is off the topic, but its been brought up a few times, so maybe it should be part of the conversation.
Did they play better with him, or is that just the perception and hope?

He played in 6 games, but one was J-ville where he really didn't play hardly at all. So we are really down to 5 games.
Those 5 included SF where we stunk on D, Miami who we dominated in the game he didn't play and we so-so in the one he did. Indy where Talib played poorly and was given a pass for being out of game shape. The Jets, which was a rout, but we did allow Sanchez to go 26-36-301. The 6th (and 7th if we count playoffs) was Houston, which would be a point in his favor.

Personally I think the jury is out on whether we actually played better if much better with Talib at corner. His injury issues that kept him out of many games including the AFCCG should be taken into account too.

Is it that we are so adamant in getting a corner that we are not only ignoring Talib's risk factors but also overrating his contributions? Personally I think people overrated his play during the season because it gave them hope the defense was 'fixed'.

No we did play better with Talib. Just look at what Boldin did to us before and after Talib got hurt. That pretty much destroys your whole argument. Ironically I see it as your perception and hope that we didn't play better play better with Talib b/c reality says otherwise.

JackBauer · 02-26-2013, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocHoliday

I thought it was interesting that Bedsrd doesn't feel Arrington will be happy with slot corner money. Gotta wonder if the second CB the Pats draft is going to be Mathieu then. He'd be the slot replacement as well as the ST ace the Pats could use in a late round pick

Pity the fool who pays Arrington starting corner money.

Sicilian · 02-26-2013, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ay-yo

No we did play better with Talib. Just look at what Boldin did to us before and after Talib got hurt. That pretty much destroys your whole argument. Ironically I see it as your perception and hope that we didn't play better play better with Talib b/c reality says otherwise.

This is based on a sample size of one game (and realistically, less than half a game with Talib actually involved). In the second half (where 75% of the Ravens points were scored), they also completely shifted gears offensively, essentially moving to the shotgun exclusively and attacking downfield. It's impossible to say how effective this would have been with Talib still in there, but it does point out that there were more factors at play than simply Talib vs. No Talib.

Not only that, it still doesn't answer the question: Was it Talib that made the defense better? Or was it having ANY halfway decent corner, allowing McCourty to shore up the safety position and Arrington to play the slot where he's better suited? The point is, no one is arguing that the Patriots need a CB, they're arguing that the CB doesn't need to be Talib given his list of risks off the field and seeming inability to stay on the field.

***Sciz*** · 02-26-2013, 03:03 PM

Against the Ravens, it wasn't Talib coming off the field that made the biggest difference. It was Cole going on. Arrington did just fine as the #2 for most of the game (3/7, 49 yards in 66 total snaps). It was Cole that got abused (5/6, 62 yards, 1 TD in 33 snaps).

I don't think they need a Talib kind of CB. I'd much rather get someone who is a little less talented but more reliably on the field plus someone who can be a better #4 than Cole.

eagle eye · 02-26-2013, 03:04 PM

Talib was all over Anquain Boldin in the AFCCG and I think we would have won that game had he stayed on the field.

There are lots of stories about off the field stuff and the work ethic one too and then there is his injury proneness as well. I think he should be given an incentivised deal which makes him big money if he performs but not a truckload of guaranteed money.

patsfan-1982 · 02-26-2013, 03:41 PM

i would be ok at 3 years and 21 million 7 per is the market for just about any starting CB

Marqui · 02-26-2013, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sciz

Against the Ravens, it wasn't Talib coming off the field that made the biggest difference. It was Cole going on.

How can we definitively know that?

ay-yo · 02-26-2013, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sicilian

This is based on a sample size of one game (and realistically, less than half a game with Talib actually involved). In the second half (where 75% of the Ravens points were scored), they also completely shifted gears offensively, essentially moving to the shotgun exclusively and attacking downfield. It's impossible to say how effective this would have been with Talib still in there, but it does point out that there were more factors at play than simply Talib vs. No Talib.

Not only that, it still doesn't answer the question: Was it Talib that made the defense better? Or was it having ANY halfway decent corner, allowing McCourty to shore up the safety position and Arrington to play the slot where he's better suited? The point is, no one is arguing that the Patriots need a CB, they're arguing that the CB doesn't need to be Talib given his list of risks off the field and seeming inability to stay on the field.

From the Andy Johnson post I originally quoted

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

. . . Did they play better with him, or is that just the perception and hope? . . . .

. . . Personally I think the jury is out on whether we actually played better if much better with Talib at corner. . . .

. . . . Is it that we are so adamant in getting a corner that we are not only ignoring Talib's risk factors but also overrating his contributions? . . .

I agree with you Sicilian that we don't need Talib specifically we need anybody who is a quality #1 CB. My problem is with Andy's post which questions whether the team was better with Talib or without him. To me that is utter non-sense.

If we sign Talib I hope the Pats protect themselves by putting in some sort of clause that will void the contract is he gets the year suspension. Or extra money for every game started to protect against injuries. However I don't think the CB market is as great as everybody says.

Gamble - if cut by Carolina he is the guy I want the most, over Talib. I don't see Carolina going after any big name FA CB's since they'd be cutting him to get cap space.

Grimes - a much bigger injury risk than Talib. Not sure of Falcons cap situation but they will want to retain or replace him

Nnamdi - can he still play? we don't know. Is 31. I don't watch the Eagles but it's possible his athleticism is starting to go.

DRC - not as good a player as Talib. A better athlete than a CB. If the price is 5 mil a year I'd take him but I think it will take more than that to sign him. We'll see. Certainly a viable option. Call it a hunch but if the Eagles cut Nnamdi they'll want to retain this guy.

Sean Smith - wants 10 per year, I don't think I'd give him much more than 5-6. Also the Dolphins traded away Vontae Davis during the season and have lots of cap room. You have to think they're going to retain him or look to sign another top FA CB.

Derek Cox - Has played in 73.4%. This guy is also an injury risk.

***Sciz*** · 02-26-2013, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marqui

How can we definitively know that?

Because they weren't abusing Talib's replacement. They were abusing Talib's replacement's replacement. The issue in that game wasn't the lack of a top-end CB, it was the lack of CB depth, namely a #4 CB that played terribly.