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

Reiss Believes Wilfork Will Stay


Status
Not open for further replies.

PatsFans.com Article

Pro Bowl Player
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
7,420
Ian's Daily Blog - ESPNBoston.com’s Mike Reiss released his Tuesday mailbag, and one of the obvious topics had to do with defensive lineman Vince Wilfork – who is in the middle off negotiations which will hopefully lead to a contract extension.According to Reiss, he believes that the two sides will reach an agreement, and feels that the team knows [...]

 
If Wilfork goes this team goes two ways...

1) The run defense will suck

2) The defense becomes a primary 4-3
 
This has been my train of thought all along. BB prefers to play a 3-4 2 gap defense. No position on that type of defense is more important than the big NT who has to be doubled on all running plays. BB knows without Vince he cant make that defense run like he wants it to. BB isnt ready to go back to the Steve Martin days, a deal will be reached eventually its just going to take some time.
 
Who's to say that Wilfork can't be replaced? Belichick drafted two NTs last year for a reason, and while neither seemed ready to step into Vince's shoes full-time, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, after the a franchised year from Vince, one of them is.

For all the complaining on this board about how Vince deserves to get paid in accordance with his demands (without knowing what those demands are: seriously, how is this any different than the behavior that Seymour was demonized for?), where exactly is this coming from?

Wilfork's very, very good, don't get me wrong, but if he wants near-Haynesworth money on a long-term contract, while continuing to show up to TC every year heavier than he was the year before, then he's not going to get the deal that he wants. In which case, the Pats will franchise him. You sentimental types need to just accept that, because it's how the Pats will always do business under Belichick: they're not going to throw stupid money at players, and that's a good thing. People have been crying foul about how it means that FAs will never come here since the day Belichick got here (and before- that complaint was present in his Browns day, as well), and it's never been true.
 
Last edited:
Wilfork's very, very good, don't get me wrong, but if he wants near-Haynesworth money on a long-term contract

Haynesworth money is basically franchise quarterback money. I don't think Wilfork is stupid/greedy enough to ask for more money than Brady.
 
Who's to say that Wilfork can't be replaced? Belichick drafted two NTs last year for a reason,

Quite frankly I think that they are players who came from 4-3 systems as opposed to being pure NTs. That tells me BB wants the felxibility(also he was forced to do so as very few D-1 programs run a pure 3-4.).
 
This has been my train of thought all along. BB prefers to play a 3-4 2 gap defense. No position on that type of defense is more important than the big NT who has to be doubled on all running plays. BB knows without Vince he cant make that defense run like he wants it to. BB isnt ready to go back to the Steve Martin days, a deal will be reached eventually its just going to take some time.

BB ran a 4-3 in 2001. Its not like he is foreign or prejudicial to the notion.
 
Last edited:
Who's to say that Wilfork can't be replaced? Belichick drafted two NTs last year for a reason, and while neither seemed ready to step into Vince's shoes full-time, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, after the a franchised year from Vince, one of them is.

For all the complaining on this board about how Vince deserves to get paid in accordance with his demands (without knowing what those demands are: seriously, how is this any different than the behavior that Seymour was demonized for?), where exactly is this coming from?

Wilfork's very, very good, don't get me wrong, but if he wants near-Haynesworth money on a long-term contract, while continuing to show up to TC every year heavier than he was the year before, then he's not going to get the deal that he wants. In which case, the Pats will franchise him. You sentimental types need to just accept that, because it's how the Pats will always do business under Belichick: they're not going to throw stupid money at players, and that's a good thing. People have been crying foul about how it means that FAs will never come here since the day Belichick got here (and before- that complaint was present in his Browns day, as well), and it's never been true.


I agree if he wants Haynesworth money then the team should just give up on talks and franchise him asap and from there either trade him, or keep him and let him play at 7 million this year. But if I remember correctly Wilfork mentioned something like he isnt Haynesworth and his contract has nothing to do with what happened with Albert or something within those lines.
 
BB ran a 4-3 in 2001. Its not like he is foreign or prejudicial to the notion.

Im not saying he is, but its pretty clear hes built the defense to play that 34 2 gap system cause its what he prefers.
 
Wilfork will be franchised this year while the team continues to put higher calibur players in other areas of need as well as hammering out a new contract for Brady. I think he'll get a contract offer eventually and hope he will get paid a fair price for his services. If he wants Haynesworth money then he's gone. A Haynesworth type of deal would, in effect, cripple this team.
 
Im not saying he is, but its pretty clear hes built the defense to play that 34 2 gap system cause its what he prefers.

I agree. BB does prefer to play a 3-4. However the personnel he has drafted runs counter to his preference. Fast LBs. DLs from 3-4 systems.. I could be wrong but I see the D evolving into a 4-3.
 
Last edited:
Wilfork will be franchised this year while the team continues to put higher calibur players in other areas of need as well as hammering out a new contract for Brady. I think he'll get a contract offer eventually and hope he will get paid a fair price for his services. If he wants Haynesworth money then he's gone. A Haynesworth type of deal would, in effect, cripple this team.

When do you cut the line, Kontra. Draft? Camp? In a cap-less year, teams are free to spend what they want, when they want w/o cap concerns.
 
When do you cut the line, Kontra. Draft? Camp? In a cap-less year, teams are free to spend what they want, when they want w/o cap concerns.

You're not allowed to frontload the contract though, if that's what you were thinking.
 
You're not allowed to frontload the contract though, if that's what you were thinking.

No. Just asking you when from a timing perspective you move Vince. IMO, if a deal is not hatched, you move him around/during the draft.

You can front load a deal, just can't be more than 50% of the year two payout without it being pro-rated over the term of the contract.
 
Last edited:
No. Just asking you when from a timing perspective you move Vince. IMO, if a deal is not hatched, you move him around/during the draft.

You can front load a deal, just can't be more than 50% of the year two payout without it being pro-rated over the term of the contract.

Well, I don't want the team to move Vince at all. However, if they have to move him, I would want it to be before the draft so we can use the pick this season. On top of getting the pick, you give either one of Brace or Pryor (probably Brace) more time to work in and get familiar with the first team defense.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't want the team to move Vince at all. However, if they have to move them, I would want it to be before the draft so we can use the pick this season. On top of getting the pick, you give either one of Brace or Pryor (probably Brace) more time to work in and get familiar with the first team defense.

Thats my belief as well. Not happy if it comes to fruition. :-(
 
I think he's gone and I think it's a good thing. Spending 10M on a player is not a good idea. Yes, I realize Brady gets that, but it's unavoidable with a QB (I can see all the people on here licking their chops..."what about Brady, HUH, HUH, HUH"...pipe down).

Tag him and trade him. There are several DTs in the draft who would be better on DAY ONE. Better and cheaper, I like that and I think Belichick does too!
 
I think he's gone and I think it's a good thing. Spending 10M on a player is not a good idea. Yes, I realize Brady gets that, but it's unavoidable with a QB (I can see all the people on here licking their chops..."what about Brady, HUH, HUH, HUH"...pipe down).

Tag him and trade him. There are several DTs in the draft who would be better on DAY ONE. Better and cheaper, I like that and I think Belichick does too!

How does the crap that comes out of your mouth taste, seriously?
 
I think he's gone and I think it's a good thing. Spending 10M on a player is not a good idea. Yes, I realize Brady gets that, but it's unavoidable with a QB (I can see all the people on here licking their chops..."what about Brady, HUH, HUH, HUH"...pipe down).

Tag him and trade him. There are several DTs in the draft who would be better on DAY ONE. Better and cheaper, I like that and I think Belichick does too!

Hey cool! Because we don't already have enough needs in the draft... let's just add another one! Why not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


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
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Back
Top