spacecrime

He was a rookie that BB thought very highly of. Why would we assume he can't play?

Besides, you don't need to be nasty. You just need to not let the pocket collapse up the middle.

__________________
“When we look at the board, based on everything we want in a football player at that particular time, we evaluate them and take the player that fits best for our football team. That’s what we always do, and I think the last nine years we’ve put a pretty competitive team out there on the field every year. I think that’s how you do it – you get good football players. Sometimes they are not always at the No. 1 position, but I don’t think you pass up good football players to get the guys who aren’t as good just because they’re at a position that somebody feels you need.”
BB on his draft philosophy, April 2010

spacecrime

Yeah, we should keep Mankins because in six years when his career is done, the Pats will never reach the playoffs again.

Come on. No player is irreplaceable. If you think the Pats cannot ever reach the playoffs ever again once he is gone, fine. But if you think they can recover when he retires in 5-6 years, why can't they recover now?

Besides, you can't look at is the team better off with Mankins or without him. You have to say, Is the team better off with Mankins at OG or Kaczur at OG and $8 mil a year spent on someone else. Like a RDE or OLB.

The difference between a serviceable OG and a stud OG just isn't that great. Like it or not, Justin Tuck killed us in SB42. We had problems other than Mankns, and in another thread we can talk all about them. But here we are talking about Mankins, and anyone who says no one can ever play better than him needs to rewatch that game.

Mankins is good. If he were Evans or Hutchinson, we'd have a 19-0 banner.

I'm fine with $6 mil a year for an OG, nervous about $7 mil a year, and no way do I want the Pats to spend $8 mil a year.

Anyone who thinks that $8 mil a year cannot be put to better use on this team, fine. It's a free country

But you're wrong

__________________
“When we look at the board, based on everything we want in a football player at that particular time, we evaluate them and take the player that fits best for our football team. That’s what we always do, and I think the last nine years we’ve put a pretty competitive team out there on the field every year. I think that’s how you do it – you get good football players. Sometimes they are not always at the No. 1 position, but I don’t think you pass up good football players to get the guys who aren’t as good just because they’re at a position that somebody feels you need.”
BB on his draft philosophy, April 2010

ALP

how bout vincent jackson? does SD need a gaurd?

__________________
Last time I lived in New England the Pats became a Dynasty

Then I moved away and they haven't won since

...now I'm moving back, and a Lombardi I predict

IcyPatriot

crowell33

The quote above is not an educated opinion. ProFootballFocus.com - Cumulative Team Statistics

Pro Football Focus rates every play, of every player in the NFL each season. Connolly rated higher last year than Koppen, Light, and Kaczur.

Deus Irae

Pro Football Focus, to put it kindly, is worse than useless when it comes to its formulae.

__________________
"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

pats1

Caserio once called Ohrnberger a "bulldog, not the type of guy you'd want to be alone in a room with."

PatsFanSince74

Hits tend to reflect sacks, so the fewer of the latter the better.

I'm just taking the position that with his OL last year, anchored by Mankins on his blind side, Tommy took only 16 hits, didn't miss a game (or a play as far as I can recall) due to injury and had a pass rating of 92 or so. I'm willing to come out here on the morning of January 3rd, man-up and say I was wrong if a Mankins-less OL produces the same or better results.

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

PatsFanSince74

This is a good discussion and people are actually putting out reasonable positions on both sides of a tough issue.

Here's where I come down, as I've said.

I look at this through the lens of the window slowly closing on TB's best years and see everything from the perspective of making another run at a ring while he's still on the right side of 35 (i.e., the next three seasons). Of course, he could defy the odds and be another Elway or Favre, but John is the only QB to win an SB after the age of 35.

So, I just think the Pats should avoid the risk of changing an important part of any future success and one that seems to be working. Last year, the OL was told to protect the Franchise and give him every chance to get back to his old form after a career-threatening injury and surgery. They more than excelled at that, allowing only 16 sacks and giving Tommy time to get his feet back under him without ducking "incoming" every other play.

I'm willing to man-up, as I've said elsewhere here, and come out here on the morning of January 3rd. If Brady has put another low 90's pass rating and not missed a play due to injury again and taken around 16 sacks with a Mankins-less line, I'll be the first to say I was wrong. Can I plan to meet you here then?

And, it's you who are are wrong.

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

BSR

I'm not sure what the point of this is. I'm sure most everyone would rather have Mankin's at LG, but that isn't reality. The question isn't whether or not Mankins replacement will do as good as job as Mankins. Unless one of the young guys breaks out, that is unlikely to be the case. The question is really can they be productive given the drop off in talent. That is obviously yes. They have been productive without Mankins before and they can be productive without him again. That isn't to diminish Mankin's worth, its just means that there isn't a reason to abandon ship.

Also, 16 sacks in an insanely low number, the best of Brady's career, and is hardly a measuring stick that should define a good season or a bad one. Its an anomoly, at least as Brady is concerned, as his next best season with regards to sacks was 21. Sack totals in the low to mid twenties are probably more indicative of a typical Brady season.