I'd say trading the big man out would be the worst case scenario. Premier NT's don't grow on trees and VW is one of the better ones in the league. Unless Brace is ready to take over (and from everything we have seen he isn't) we need VW or a position of strength moves to a hole in a hurry. The defensive front 7 has enough question marks, we don't need to go adding one more to the list.
Lose Wilfork and suddenly this defense will have the look of an expansion team in its inaugural season ...seriously - Our defense would start looking more like the early 90s Patriots.
Personally I don't think Wilfork is ALL THAT and not worth much more than the franchise dollar he is offered, but he is one of the veterans on defense this team certainly cannot afford to lose - Wilfork is no Ted Washington in his prime but he is a focal point of this young defense.
That was a tough one, but I ultimately picked that he stays under the franchise tag, because then that's all we're going to hear about for the next 12 months. If he's traded the Pats will catch some heat and there will be some second-guessing, but at least it'll be over and done with.
Any of those 3 options could be good or could be bad. As I see it, the worst case scenario is that we're forced to overpay him by a ton in a long-term deal, then watch his body break down and we're stuck with an albatross contract. Best case scenario is we sign him long-term to a reasonable deal and he plays up to it. So I voted 1, just because, since it's potentially both best case and worst case.
Any of those 3 options could be good or could be bad. As I see it, the worst case scenario is that we're forced to overpay him by a ton in a long-term deal, then watch his body break down and we're stuck with an albatross contract. Best case scenario is we sign him long-term to a reasonable deal and he plays up to it. So I voted 1, just because, since it's potentially both best case and worst case.
Any of those 3 options could be good or could be bad. As I see it, the worst case scenario is that we're forced to overpay him by a ton in a long-term deal, then watch his body break down and we're stuck with an albatross contract. Best case scenario is we sign him long-term to a reasonable deal and he plays up to it. So I voted 1, just because, since it's potentially both best case and worst case.
Whoops, I opened the thread and then left it for a few minutes and came back thinking it was asking what was the BEST scenario... so my vote for long-term deal is skewed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.