ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Why? Because the addition of a quality LB or WR would benefit this team more than Faulk's continued presence on a offense that has enough depth in the backfield to suffer his loss and yet still be productive.
Faulk would be coming to a new team with the label of winner and the reputation as a productive change of pace RB, giving him a some pretty decent value as trade bait.
Our team just isn't deep enough on defense, or at WR, to have the luxury this year of sitting on their hands and keeping Faulk as insurance if Maroney or Dillon go down. Bruschi will be retiring soon, Brady only has so many years in a career, Seymour is at his peak, and Dillon isn't long for being a featured back in the NFL. How many times can you be sure the stars will align again for the Pats? Picture the offense if Maroney and Dillon both stay healthy - Faulk will be a $2.5mil glorified benchwarmer. Of course it is early, but Mills has skills (as Napolean Dynamite might say), and Pass or Evans could fill in when needed as a reciever, maybe even Cobbs would make this team if Faulk was gone. No, they may not be as talented as Faulk, but collectively a couple of them they could fill the void of his leaving well enough when you consider how little Faulk may even be on the field.
The bottom line is that Faulk's playing time will be reduced significantly, he's a fumbler, he's overpaid for a third string back, and we most likely have the capacity to cover his loss. Wouldn't you rather have a trustworthy linebacker running around beside Tedy slamming everything in sight? Wouldn't a guy like that have a much bigger effect on the success of this team than Faulk will? Or how about a sure handed, tough guy receiver out-muscling DB's for a dozen touchdowns?
The impact of a quality WR (whether Branch comes in or not) or, even more so, the impact of quality LB, would greatly outweigh Faulk's subtraction from the squad. Sure, it is a bit of a risk trading a contributor like Faulk, but you have to give to get, and Faulk would be worth much more to another team than he is to us today.
__________________
King of my matchbox sized world
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Why? Because the addition of a quality LB or WR would benefit this team more than Faulk's continued presence on a offense that has enough depth in the backfield to suffer his loss and yet still be productive.
Faulk would be coming to a new team with the label of winner and the reputation as a productive change of pace RB, giving him a some pretty decent value as trade bait.
Our team just isn't deep enough on defense, or at WR, to have the luxury this year of sitting on their hands and keeping Faulk as insurance if Maroney or Dillon go down. Bruschi will be retiring soon, Brady only has so many years in a career, Seymour is at his peak, and Dillon isn't long for being a featured back in the NFL. How many times can you be sure the stars will align again for the Pats? Picture the offense if Maroney and Dillon both stay healthy - Faulk will be a $2.5mil glorified benchwarmer. Of course it is early, but Mills has skills (as Napolean Dynamite might say), and Pass or Evans could fill in when needed as a reciever, maybe even Cobbs would make this team if Faulk was gone. No, they may not be as talented as Faulk, but collectively a couple of them they could fill the void of his leaving well enough when you consider how little Faulk may even be on the field.
The bottom line is that Faulk's playing time will be reduced significantly, he's a fumbler, he's overpaid for a third string back, and we most likely have the capacity to cover his loss. Wouldn't you rather have a trustworthy linebacker running around beside Tedy slamming everything in sight? Wouldn't a guy like that have a much bigger effect on the success of this team than Faulk will? Or how about a sure handed, tough guy receiver out-muscling DB's for a dozen touchdowns?
The impact of a quality WR (whether Branch comes in or not) or, even more so, the impact of quality LB, would greatly outweigh Faulk's subtraction from the squad. Sure, it is a bit of a risk trading a contributor like Faulk, but you have to give to get, and Faulk would be worth much more to another team than he is to us today.
I severely disagree. We've already got young, developmental WR and LB that need to learn the system. The RB position is a position of strength. It would be foolhardy to weaken a position of strength to add another question mark at either WR or LB, both positions with plenty of question marks as they stand now.
The players we have may end up doing a great job, we don't know, they're question marks. But to weaken an area that you already know is strong in order to introduce another player that you are not sure of is just foolish, imo.
I think Faulk's value actually went up this season. Without needing to be used as Corey's backup, Faulk can now fully settle into his true role of 3rd down back and change of pace/2 minute drill guy. He's done very well in that role, he's just run into trouble when he's had to take snaps from Corey the past two seasons. Now that he doesn't have to do that with Maroney on board, I think Faulk will flourish this season.
I believe Faulk is an awesome role player that has played an important part of the Pats success. I think he has the ability to be an integral part of the next couple Patriots teams. I feel like you are underestimating his impact on the team.
If it were possible to get a WR or LB that can come in and play an important part at their respective positions then I would consider a trade. Other than that, I would keep Faulk.
Last edited by Gopats!!!; 08-15-2006 at 09:12 AM..
I wouldn't mind seeing that but I would want to see which LB or WR we'll be getting. I think Maroney can definitely fit the Faulk role this year as at the very least a 3rd down back. We are heavy on RB's this year because of CD's return and Maroney's skills. I'd be interested to see however what type of player we could get for Faulk. While I'd obviously rather trade Pass, I don't think there are too many teams out there who would give anything up for patrick Pass. If we had to trade anyone, Faulk would be a very likely candidate in my opinion.
Why? Because the addition of a quality LB or WR would benefit this team more than Faulk's continued presence on a offense that has enough depth in the backfield to suffer his loss and yet still be productive.
Faulk would be coming to a new team with the label of winner and the reputation as a productive change of pace RB, giving him a some pretty decent value as trade bait.
Our team just isn't deep enough on defense, or at WR, to have the luxury this year of sitting on their hands and keeping Faulk as insurance if Maroney or Dillon go down. Bruschi will be retiring soon, Brady only has so many years in a career, Seymour is at his peak, and Dillon isn't long for being a featured back in the NFL. How many times can you be sure the stars will align again for the Pats? Picture the offense if Maroney and Dillon both stay healthy - Faulk will be a $2.5mil glorified benchwarmer. Of course it is early, but Mills has skills (as Napolean Dynamite might say), and Pass or Evans could fill in when needed as a reciever, maybe even Cobbs would make this team if Faulk was gone. No, they may not be as talented as Faulk, but collectively a couple of them they could fill the void of his leaving well enough when you consider how little Faulk may even be on the field.
The bottom line is that Faulk's playing time will be reduced significantly, he's a fumbler, he's overpaid for a third string back, and we most likely have the capacity to cover his loss. Wouldn't you rather have a trustworthy linebacker running around beside Tedy slamming everything in sight? Wouldn't a guy like that have a much bigger effect on the success of this team than Faulk will? Or how about a sure handed, tough guy receiver out-muscling DB's for a dozen touchdowns?
The impact of a quality WR (whether Branch comes in or not) or, even more so, the impact of quality LB, would greatly outweigh Faulk's subtraction from the squad. Sure, it is a bit of a risk trading a contributor like Faulk, but you have to give to get, and Faulk would be worth much more to another team than he is to us today.
Great, another Trade Faulk thread.
Yes, the teams are lining up to trade max talented players for an 8-10 plays a game RB who is over 30 yrs of age and makes $2.5 million.
Given our exuberance over Maroney I agree that Faulk might be less valuable. I'd said elsewhere that Cobbs showed that he had potential to be a threat to Faulk's presence in 2007, given his running and catching demonstration last Friday.
But to trade Faulk requires a willing GM with 2 factors, a need for a 3rd down back and a disposable yet quality LB or WR. I would not trade Fauk this yeark for a 2007 draft pick.
So, Maroney gets hurt and you've traded Faulk. Now, you're getting blitzed to hell and McDaniels is calling a screen pass.
So, I guess Cobbs has to be the one to feign a block, and move upfield at the exact right isntant?
No thanks.
But what IF we could get an ILB just in case Bruschi got hurt... Oh wait, Tedy is hurt isn't he.
I will say that I agree that I wouldn't want to trade Faulk just for a 2007 draft pick (unless of course there's a GM out there who was willing to give us a high pick ). I'd really like to plug that ILB hole that I believe we have though but I wouldn't trade Kevin just for the sake of a trade either.
Faulk Should Be Traded
). I'd really like to plug that ILB hole that I believe we have though but I wouldn't trade Kevin just for the sake of a trade either.
Linear Mode
