PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

PD: SHOULD the Patriots even re-sign Wilfork?


Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no question the Pats need him on this team. If the Pats let him walk I believe it would be the biggest mistake in the BB era here in NE. I believe that the Pats should give him a long term deal, not Haynesworth type money, but enough to make him happy. The guy is only 28, give him a 5 or 6 year deal. That only brings him to 33 or 34, he definitely has 5 or 6 years left in the tank. He isnt an every down DLmen, like the article said he only plays about 50% of the snaps. If they let him walk that creates another huge need on defense, maybe even more pressing than a pass rusher. The Pats cannot afford to lose this guy and have yet another huge hole to fill on this defense.

Ditto. I agree that if the Pats ever need to swallow their contract philosophy on a player, it can be argued that Wilfork is one guy they absolutely need and has earned that respect up to this point.
 
depends on the mindset of the front office......maybe they look at the rest of the defensive roster and tell themselves it won't matter in 2010 if they have wilfork or not.......they are going to be mediocre and must go through the pains of devevloping younger players now instead of trying to keep the status quo going........

who knows.....maybe they think they will move wilfork, get the first rounder, and then backfill with someone like ryan pickett for less money and pick up the draft pick along the way.......

See if the Pats do what you're saying and settle for mediocrity they are taking another step backwards. That phase was supposed to be this past season in developing a young defense and getting them experience. I dont see them as being mediocre this season with the addition of a pass rusher, that is what they need to get over the hump and be a solid defense. The secondary got the experience that it needed this past season and take a step in the right direction to getting back towards the dominant Patriot defenses of the Super Bowl years. Wilfork is a major part in the defense, probably the most valuable player on that side of the ball.
 
we need to re- sign him. No one is more imprtant to the defense than Wilfork. Im disgusted with the thought that ron brace could potentially be the starter at the position next year. Wilfork was due a better contract years ago. since our last superbowl victory there has vbeen a disturbing trend of letting young talent that we drafted and cultivated go (Samuel, Branch, Givens, Seymour, even david thomas). sure, some of them werent as valuable to their new teams but they were valuable to US,and thats all that matters. by losing those guys we lost a valuable link to the past success of this team, hence the lack of leadership. Lets not do the same with the most valuable asset on defense, Pay him accordingly.

Samuel wanted shutdown corner money to be solid, gambling #1 corner. There are better ways to use that money.

Branch decided not to honor the last year of his contract, and you can't set the precedent that you're going to let any player tear up the last year of his deal for a better one. You'll be flooded with holdouts.

Givens was a nice player.

Seymour was highly unlikely to resign after this year, so we dealt him for a good chance at a top 10 pick. Given the last two top ten picks for BB were Seymour and Mayo, I feel confident we will get a great player for 6+ years in the future, as opposed to a great player for one year now. Also, I would not call Seymour "young" talent. Talent sure, but he's almost 30 now.

David Thomas has had some nice moments for the Saints, but he brought nothing to the table that Watson and Baker can't do in tandem.
 
And Dan Williams runs a 5.23.

you're talking about a guy who is not here........you are also talking about going into the season without a guy who has shown he can play the nose as a regular

makes some sense if you are blowing the defense up........but the defense is already blown up anyway.

and cody runs a 5.8/40.......you could probably wake up traylor right now and he could outrun that
 
If we can?

If Kraft wants to pay Wilfork $10M a year, I suspect the deal CAN be done.

I don't negotitate contracts. I'm just saying the reasoning in the article is faulty.

I hope they can resign him. Just as the secondary looks promising for the future, i don't think an entire rebuild of the front seven will augur well for the next few years.
 
With that being said I think the Patriots need to resign Wilfork, his value to this team is incredibly high, not only with his play but also his leadership. The defense lacked leadership this past season and if Wilfork is let go who is the veteran leader on that defense that knows the Patriot way and how to win? There really isnt that guy besides Wilfork. Letting Wilfork walk away would be taking a 2 steps backwards instead of a step forward.
Exactly. In another thread, I pointed out that franchising Wilfork and trading him could really lose the locker room for Belichick. Wilfork is unquestionably a leader on defense, and one of the few veterans left on the team.

If we franchise him, we send the message to our team that the Patriots aren't willing to reward stand-out players for their contributions. You have to take a pay cut if you want to stay here. That is going to create a very unattractive environment for any potential free agents.

The Patriots need to show that they don't consider their players to be poker chips. I think the Richard Seymour and Mike Vrabel trades did more to hurt the locker room than people might imagine. It said, "We don't care how important you are, everyone is expendable." While that's true in the NFL, the Patriots simultaneously haven't shown that they are willing to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and reward their best players.

Re-sign Wilfork to a deal he wants. I think many of our locker room issues with regard to respect for Belichick would begin to ease if the Pats showed they truly value their players. I get the feeling that many guys on the team aren't buying into Belichick's system because of the way they think he deals with players. Rewarding Wilfork, after all he's done the past year to not push it, would go a long way toward repairing that trust.
 
See if the Pats do what you're saying and settle for mediocrity they are taking another step backwards. That phase was supposed to be this past season in developing a young defense and getting them experience. I dont see them as being mediocre this season with the addition of a pass rusher, that is what they need to get over the hump and be a solid defense. The secondary got the experience that it needed this past season and take a step in the right direction to getting back towards the dominant Patriot defenses of the Super Bowl years. Wilfork is a major part in the defense, probably the most valuable player on that side of the ball.

I was just throwing that out there as a possibility....I mean one could argue that they were successful with finding the fattest guy around that year (washington, traylor) rather than having the franchise NT....does free up $$$ to pursue other talents and needs

maybe the concept of long term big money commitment to wilfork prevents the pats from pursuing someone like peppers and that having a cheaper alternative in someone like pickett makes it doable.......and picking up a first rounder along the way that can turn into rolando mcclain

theoretically speaking if the pats trade wilfork to denver or KC, and then the pats use that pick for rolando mcclain, their own first rounder on jared odrick, sign peppers and pickett, and then maybe jerry hughes in the 2nd round, you suddenly have:

LDE: warren/pryor
NT: pickett/brace
RDE: odrick/wright

OLB: peppers
ILB: mayo
ILB: mcclain/guyton
OLB: hughes/TBC

its a huge stretch, but it is possible that keeping wilfork prevents the kind of overall makeover that BB is looking for.......maybe the issue is the bigger picture
 
yes they should re-sign wilfork, and i don't agree with some OP who say we shoud trade him for a #1 and then draft a rookie NT with that pick....? thats just crazy.


if they are going to trade him for a #1 then there is no reason to run the 3-4 next year. they don't have the LB's to run it and have a hard time finding them.


move to the 4-3 and put guyton, and mayo. were they can have more of a impact guyton at 4-3 OLB and mayo at MLB. use the two #1's on two fast DE's like Everson Griffen, and Carlos Dunlap, put warren and wright at DT and draft. Eric Norwood, in the 2th round to play the other OLB spot.
 
And Dan Williams runs a 5.23.

and dan williams aint exaclty known as the hardest worker or the sharpest tool in the shed.....

I believe in the absence of wilfork, that his replacement is already in the NFL
 
I was just throwing that out there as a possibility....I mean one could argue that they were successful with finding the fattest guy around that year (washington, traylor) rather than having the franchise NT....does free up $$$ to pursue other talents and needs

maybe the concept of long term big money commitment to wilfork prevents the pats from pursuing someone like peppers and that having a cheaper alternative in someone like pickett makes it doable.......and picking up a first rounder along the way that can turn into rolando mcclain

theoretically speaking if the pats trade wilfork to denver or KC, and then the pats use that pick for rolando mcclain, their own first rounder on jared odrick, sign peppers and pickett, and then maybe jerry hughes in the 2nd round, you suddenly have:

LDE: warren/pryor
NT: pickett/brace
RDE: odrick/wright

OLB: peppers
ILB: mayo
ILB: mcclain/guyton
OLB: hughes/TBC

its a huge stretch, but it is possible that keeping wilfork prevents the kind of overall makeover that BB is looking for.......maybe the issue is the bigger picture

I see what you're saying and I am not necessarily saying that I completely disagree with it. Like you said it is a stretch and is asking for a lot to happen and a lot of pieces to fall into place. I just think the Pats are better off signing Wilfork to a long term deal
 
yes they should re-sign wilfork, and i don't agree with some OP who say we shoud trade him for a #1 and then draft a rookie NT with that pick....? thats just crazy.


if they are going to trade him for a #1 then there is no reason to run the 3-4 next year. they don't have the LB's to run it and have a hard time finding them.


move to the 4-3 and put guyton, and mayo. were they can have more of a impact guyton at 4-3 OLB and mayo at MLB. use the two #1's on two fast DE's like Everson Griffen, and Carlos Dunlap, put warren and wright at DT and draft. Eric Norwood, in the 2th round to play the other OLB spot.

Many people have suggested that the Patriots switch to a 4-3, but I just cannot see them doing that. BB never has coached a team other than a team that plays the 4-3 and dont you think if the 4-3 was in BB's mind he would have switched to that last season when the team was in a rebuilding year especially on defense.
 
I see what you're saying and I am not necessarily saying that I completely disagree with it. Like you said it is a stretch and is asking for a lot to happen and a lot of pieces to fall into place. I just think the Pats are better off signing Wilfork to a long term deal

I'm not even saying I agree with it, but there's got to be some logical reason for the wilfork situation
 
I'm not even saying I agree with it, but there's got to be some logical reason for the wilfork situation

There could be many reasons as to why the Pats arent willing to give him the big deal he is looking for:

- they dont want to invest that kind of money on one player who is 28 years old and a DT

- his weight could be an issue to them

- they could possibly want to change their whole look on defense

I disagree with all of those reasons, but I am just trying to think what is going through the Patriots front office minds.
 
Last edited:
There could be many reasons as to why the Pats arent willing to give him the big deal he is looking for:

- they dont want to invest that kind of money on one player who is 28 years old

- his weight could be an issue to them

- they could possibly want to change their whole look on defense

I disagree with all of those reasons, but I am just trying to think what is going through the Patriots front office minds.

I don't know about weight being an issue........isn't that part of the job description?

curley culp ain't walkin' in through that door
 
Last edited:
- they dont want to invest that kind of money on one player who is 28 years old

- his weight could be an issue to them

- they could possibly want to change their whole look on defense

I dont think that is the Issue. I think Belichick and Ernie Adams think economically it doesnt make sense to unload the Brinks truck on a 2 down player.

I think sometimes you have to put the philosophy aside for whats obvious, and the obvious thing to point out is that wilfork is simply worth a handsome contract.
 
I don't know about weight being an issue........isn't that part of the job description?

curley culp ain't walkin' in through that door

I am not saying it is an issue either but I have heard people speculating that his weight could possibly be an issue with the team. He has gained a considerable amount of weight over the past few years, but it hasnt effected his play on the field
 
I am not saying it is an issue either but I have heard people speculating that his weight could possibly be an issue with the team. He has gained a considerable amount of weight over the past few years, but it hasnt effected his play on the field

actually, I heard the contrary, the wilfork's wife has him on a strict diet to reduce the chances of diabetes when he gets old

as long as wilfork is active I don't believe his weight is an issue....he moves the way he always has........he will need to drop 80-100 when he retires, though
 
LDE: warren/pryor
NT: pickett/brace
RDE: odrick/wright

OLB: peppers
ILB: mayo
ILB: mcclain/guyton
OLB: hughes/TBC

I really like the out of the box thinking some people have but this one is crazy.. I'm 50/50 on bringing back Wilfork but to let Wilfork go and bring in Peppers would stir the hornets nest.. Players would see the Pats giving up on a loyal player and bringing in a selfish one.. Never mind the fact peppers has NEVEr played in a 3-4..

Plus do you really want Pickett and Brace at NT? Brace looked pretty bad out there and we witnessed what Wright really is, a backup/rotational guy.. He's good in spots..

I can't see the pats overall goal of of letting Wilfork go after Trading seymour.. If their plan was to wait and see and possibily let wilfork go, then they should have kept Seymour and trade wilfork.. Or kept Seymour and resigned him and traded wilfork this offseason.. We wuldn't have dealt with the blow at RDE
 
I really like the out of the box thinking some people have but this one is crazy.. I'm 50/50 on bringing back Wilfork but to let Wilfork go and bring in Peppers would stir the hornets nest.. Players would see the Pats giving up on a loyal player and bringing in a selfish one.. Never mind the fact peppers has NEVEr played in a 3-4..

Plus do you really want Pickett and Brace at NT? Brace looked pretty bad out there and we witnessed what Wright really is, a backup/rotational guy.. He's good in spots..

I can't see the pats overall goal of of letting Wilfork go after Trading seymour.. If their plan was to wait and see and possibily let wilfork go, then they should have kept Seymour and trade wilfork.. Or kept Seymour and resigned him and traded wilfork this offseason.. We wuldn't have dealt with the blow at RDE

what hornets nest? if wilfork is gone, warren would be the only one left from the good ole days........so who on the defense would be so stirred? they're all mostly rookies and 2nd year guys anyway?

if the pats have plans on contending in 2010, the changes to the defense will indeed be drastic.....

my solution would probably be the most efficient one anyway....the defense would be stacked with youth plus a couple of vets. big, physical, fast.

my plan would only have one real big ticket item in peppers......don't forget that you get to save a bundle by dumping thomas in the process. whereas if you extend wilfork to big dollars, you will still have to go out and spend a bunch more in order to get the OLB's to make this defense competitive

mind you that this is all in theory...........as such plans are rarely successful even if attempted

pickett would get most of the reps on defense, and I am still hopeful that a season in OTA's for brace will produce a more effective backup....gotta burn off some of that baby fat to see if there's really anything there
 
Last edited:
Dumb article. The lines been holding the fort while we try to play a 3-4 with one or two linebackers.

He'll be 34 at the end of a contract. Nose tackles get better with age. Strength endures, it's the legs of speedsters that go.
He even gives examples of older succesful NTs.

Since he makes no points well, I'd say we should sign Wilfork if we can.

Vince's situation is somewhat unique on a couple of levels. Paying him what he potentially wants precludes paying those who surround him. Vince and Bianca have acknowledged their own concerns related to the untimely death of BOTH of his parents when he was just 21 and they were barely 40. Dad died of kidney failure related to diabetes. Mother suffered a stroke. Perillo yesterday touched on this relating how every year Vince predicts he will arrive in camp in better condition carrying less weight. So far he hasn't. Paul thinks the team shares the concern about his ability to carry his weight long range. As well as a concern about paying top tier money for a DL who is essentially a 2 down lineman. And one who might really struggle to maintain weight and conditioning if there is a lockout in 2011.

I like Vince. As a player and a person. I sense the team and ownership feels the same way. Unfortunately it also sounds like Vince made up his mind some time ago that every last cent his career was worth was his ultimate goal. If that's the case he likely wouldn't have ever been extendable here, let alone facing a potential lockout. If he wants a 6 year deal with $30-40M in guarantees, he's not going to get it here and he may not get it anywhere because of the timing of an expiring CBA. I know players will point to some other guys getting big deals, but most of them were QB's. Franchise QB's are the single most difficult piece of the puzzle for any team to land or retain. Which is why if anyone gets the long term deal here before the CBA is settled, it will be Brady. He is the most irreplaceable piece of the puzzle here and the guy they are most inclined to count on making it to his late 30's while remaining highly productive.

And again, facing a potential lockout season in 2011, Vince has less leverage than any of the Fa in recent history - none of whom has held out on a season. If he holds out on camp it will only further damage his chances of landing somewhere with a big deal after the CBA finally gets hashed out, sometime in 2011 or perhaps not even until 2012 when he is 31.

The team has likely offered him the same kind of deal they have always offered their big ticket extensions or FA signings - one with split signing/option bonus language that protects them from drowning in guaranteed money in the event of a work stoppage impacting a players career, because to not do so now would be foolish. Brady's last deal, on the heels of Manning's $34.5M signing bonus deal, offered $14M in signing bonus and $12.5M in option bonus plus some minimal salary guarantees against loss of skill in the middle years of the deal and some small roster bonuses in the outlying years. Even AD took a split signing/option bonus.

Brady took substantially less on the heels of his first Superbowl on a rookie deal that was paying him $360K to sign an incremental deal for $30M going forward to secure his immediate future. He then again took substantially less 4 years later to sign his second big deal (6-$60M) two years early even after winning back to back superbowls to insure his family's future. Next deal he signs will cover the great, great grandchildren.

Vince's future was secure when he was signed in the first round. His family's future could be secured by signing a long term deal of almost any size and duration now. He apparently wants the deal for the generations. He may end up with a one year deal in the alternative. Given the labor landscape, that's not a smart money move. Ty Warren and Dan Koppen and Matt Light are guys who took early incremental deals to secure their family's future. Vince has had that option on the table since 2008. He opted not to. Asante had that option on the table in 2006 and he opted not to. Worked out for him because there were at least 3 years left to play before a lockout so his guaranteed money was something Philly could live with even though his AAV was something they now likely wish they had opted not to since it turns out he's not the difference maker they believed he would be, any more than he would have been here. More often than not teams find out that difference makers aren't the highest paid players on the field. Unless of course they're the QB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/19: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Back
Top