Should we have made a push to bring in Sharper or Dawkins?

[Kontradiction]

While I like some of the stuff McGowan brings, I can't help but think what this defense would look like with Sharper or Dawkins in the secondary playing FS next to Meriweather. Sharper has 8 picks this season while Dawkins has 100 tackles. However, both would have brought an element to the defense that we are sorely missing this season (and, subsequently, an element that they brought to their new teams): veteran leadership. On top of that, the tutiledge of a Brian Dawkins or a Darren Sharper to Chung would be ultra-valuable as one of them holds his place in the line-up until he's ready to be a full-time starter.

What do you guys think?

 

[SVN]

While I like some of the stuff McGowan brings, I can't help but think what this defense would look like with Sharper or Dawkins in the secondary playing FS next to Meriweather. Sharper has 8 picks this season while Dawkins has 100 tackles. However, both would have brought an element to the defense that we are sorely missing this season (and, subsequently, an element that they brought to their new teams): veteran leadership. On top of that, the tutiledge of a Brian Dawkins or a Darren Sharper to Chung would be ultra-valuable as one of them holds his place in the line-up until he's ready to be a full-time starter.

What do you guys think?

i honestly think bb wanted to avoid bringing older guys only for 2 seasons and take the growing pains with the young gys. sure he bought in seau but that seems more like an inspiration leader move than anything else.

 

[Deus Irae]

Dawkins would have been an excellent addition to the team.

 

[mayoclinic]

Dawkins would have been an excellent addition to the team.

No doubt. But Denver signed Dawkins (who turned 36 this year) to a 5 year deal at $17M with escalators which could reach $27M. Take away the voidable years and it is still a 2 year deal for $9M, or $4.5M/year. I can't see the Pats shelling out that kind of deal, even though Dawkins has been terrific for Denver.

Sharper was a steal for NO at $1.7M for this season, which has been a tremendous bargain. That's certainly more like what I could have seen the Pats offering, or something like a 2 year deal at $3M with esacalators.

Aside from the money issue, either one would have been an excellent addition and would have provided some field leadership and would have perhaps accelerated the development of the younger safeties. I think that if the Pats had known how good McGowan would be, it would have made sense to bring Sharper in instead of re-signing James Sanders. But hindsight is always 20-20.

 

[klinefan]

I concur. BB screwed up again, it looks like. Instead we signed the venerable James Sanders for a long term deal.

 

[Kontradiction]

I concur. BB screwed up again, it looks like. Instead we signed the venerable James Sanders for a long term deal.

The thread assumes that Sanders is still on the team along with either one of Sharper or Dawkins. That would probably leave McGowan as being the odd man out, if anything.

 

[Sicilian]

While either would have been an asset, I really don't think safety play has been our issue this season. I like who we have.

 

[Kontradiction]

While either would have been an asset, I really don't think safety play has been our issue this season. I like who we have.

I mentioned as much as I opened the thread. To expand on it, I don't think the safety play has been an issue this season either. However, the thought of bringing in a Sharper or a Dawkins would not only improve the safety play, but it would also solve another issue for this defense - that being veteran leadership. When we lost Vrabel, Bruschi, and Harrison in the offseason, there wasn't anybody left in the locker room that could assume that leadership role. These two guys have brought all of that and then some into their new locker rooms.

 

[Sicilian]

I mentioned as much as I opened the thread. To expand on it, I don't think the safety play has been an issue this season either. However, the thought of bringing in a Sharper or a Dawkins would not only improve the safety play, but it would also solve another issue for this defense - that being veteran leadership. When we lost Vrabel, Bruschi, and Harrison in the offseason, there wasn't anybody left in the locker room that could assume that leadership role. These two guys have brought all of that and then some into their new locker rooms.

It's possible. But for the money spent, there's no guarantee that same kind of leadership emerges in this locker room. Besides, for all the leadership Dawkins brings, it hasn't stopped Denver from declining since the midway point of the season.

I see what you're saying, but again, leadership in the secondary probably doesn't help our pass rush. So is a marginal increase in safety play, plus the CHANCE that he is a leader amongst this group of guys, really worth pining over?

 

[Deus Irae]

It's possible. But for the money spent, there's no guarantee that same kind of leadership emerges in this locker room. Besides, for all the leadership Dawkins brings, it hasn't stopped Denver from declining since the midway point of the season.

I see what you're saying, but again, leadership in the secondary probably doesn't help our pass rush. So is a marginal increase in safety play, plus the CHANCE that he is a leader amongst this group of guys, really worth pining over?

To be fair, Denver transitioned from a 4-3 to a 3-4 on top of the coaching changes and quarterback changes. Despite all of this and the rocky start for Marshall, they are in the playoff hunt with 2 games to go. They've done a great job over there, and Dawkins has certainly been a part of it.

 

[Sicilian]

To be fair, Denver transitioned from a 4-3 to a 3-4 on top of the coaching changes and quarterback changes. Despite all of this and the rocky start for Marshall, they are in the playoff hunt with 2 games to go. They've done a great job over there, and Dawkins has certainly been a part of it.

True, but wouldn't a transition like that have the opposite effect? Why the 6-0 start followed by struggles? No doubt Dawkins has had a positive impact on that defense though, I'll never argue that.

 

[Deus Irae]

True, but wouldn't a transition like that have the opposite effect? Why the 6-0 start followed by struggles? No doubt Dawkins has had a positive impact on that defense though, I'll never argue that.

Well, when you look at the schedule:

Bengals
Browns
Raiders
Cowboys
Patriots
Chargers
Ravens
Steelers
Redskins
Chargers
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Raiders

The only really "bad" loss is the Raiders loss. The Redskins loss was the game that Orton missed.

 

[The Intimidator]

Dawkins would have been a great addition to this team no doubt. Not only is he an excellent playmaker, but also a leader on defense. However the Patriots don't sign players to long term deal when there in there mid 30's like Dawkins was this past season. This move would have been against how BB and his staff pursue free agents, with the expectations being Rosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas, both of which we can say didn't leave up to expectations. That's why we didn't invest in high level money into Brian Dawkins.

As far as Sharper goes, sure he would have been a good pickup, but honestly did anyone see this coming? I certainly didn't. He has been one of if not the top playmaker in the league, and one of the front runners for defensive player of the year. As far as going after him this offseason, I don't see safety as our biggest need right now, and isn't worth dishing out a UN godly amount for a guy who has done it for one year. We have Brandon Merriweather as our FS who has played near a pro bowl level this season and Pat Chung at SS who with being a 2nd round pick I think the Patriots will want to develop into that starting SS role. I see this team's primary needs as followed:

DE/OLB
RB
OL
CB
S
WR
TE
K
QB

I see safety as the 5th need right now. The only one I like who would be cheap and under radar is Dawan Landry from the Ravens. He is a younger then both Sharper and Dawkins and is known for being a hard hitter and a ball hawk, and comes from one of the top NFL defenses in the Ravens. He is the only safety I see us really going after we other needs we need to address such as the pass rush.

 

[fgssand]

I concur. BB screwed up again, it looks like. Instead we signed the venerable James Sanders for a long term deal.

Congratulations - you have won the official aqua4ever award.

 

[blackglass3]

Man, I wish you guys would stop quoting kilenfan. I have that stupid failure of a poster on my ignore list for being a complete waste of a human brain.

 

[Deus Irae]

Man, I wish you guys would stop quoting kilenfan. I have that stupid failure of a poster on my ignore list for being a complete waste of a human brain.

If you've got Firefox, this addon is perfect for the job:

Ignore Users (posts, threads, quotes), Threads, Prefixes, Avatars, Signatures and ignore by Keyword!
Highlight Users, Threads, Prefixes and by Keyword!
Bottom bar navigation, Sidebar thread lists and more!

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7023

If you don't have Firefox, get Firefox. Then this addon will be perfect for the job!

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I made a suggestion during the offseason that the Pats should've gone after Darren Sharper. Obviously, the Pats didn't get my memo. For all he's done with the Packers and Vikings, It's shocking how many teams didn't want him for only a 1 year 1 million dollar contract. Although the addition of Sharper would be nice, the Pats don't have a pass rush or pressure scheme to get him interceptions.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Man, I wish you guys would stop quoting kilenfan. I have that stupid failure of a poster on my ignore list for being a complete waste of a human brain.

Congratulations - you have won the official aqua4ever award.

I don't get it. You guys would rather have James Sanders than Darren Sharper?

 

[supafly]

I don't get it. You guys would rather have James Sanders than Darren Sharper?

I don't believe it has as much to do with the James Sanders/Darren Sharper debate, as it does with their apparent past experiences with the specific poster and his comments.

As far as the actual debate, I think they would've been interested in a reasonable deal for a couple years, sure. But as another poster stated DEN offered him a contract for 5 yrs, somewhere between 17-27 million. That was probably a reasonable offer for Dawkins to accept for his age, etc.

I think when debating you have to look at Sanders + long term capacity vs. Dawkins + short term capacity. The Pats most likely either felt that they wanted to go younger with Sanders and his upside, or felt that the equation cancelled itself out, and the value was with Sanders.

For all we know NE could've been somewhat interested, only to have DEN step in first and offer him a nice amount of money for someone his age, etc. If I had to guess I'd say that they were NOT very interested due to their rebuilding of a faster, younger defense. It's hard to try and project what the front office thinks, we can only guess.

 

[muzz]

That 1st game against Cinci was a GIFT for a king, they had no business winning that 1.

Well, when you look at the schedule:

Bengals
Browns
Raiders
Cowboys
Patriots
Chargers
Ravens
Steelers
Redskins
Chargers
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Raiders

The only really "bad" loss is the Raiders loss. The Redskins loss was the game that Orton missed.