If we franchise Mankins, how does that impact our draft?

[cstjohn17]

I hope it doesn't impact the draft one way or the other. The Patriots focus should be on front seven and BPA for the first three picks, #17, #27, #33 and then pick up 1-2 O Line in the remaining rounds.

 

[DaBruinz]

While I would love to see Mankins sign a long term deal, and I think he has earned a record OG bonus, I do expect him to be franchised and I think if that happens, it will affect how BB drafts.

Many have us drafting a Watkins or Pouncey or some other OG very early in the draft. Would franchising Mankins take these players off your draft boards and allow us to wait until much later to take an OG?

Interesting that PFW has us taking Boling at #28. I have been a fan of Boling's for our offense since October and still think we take him at #60.

One has nothing to do with the other. People have been looking at Pouncey and Watkins to replace Connolly at RG.

 

[Wilfork#75]

I don't see any situation where Mankins doesn't get tagged, so I dont think it will change too much. Everyone knows its going to happen so it wont be a suprise. To me the only two scenario's that make sense would be to either tag and trade him, or give him an extension. I dont think letting him play for 1 year under the tag makes any sense because its the least value you can get for him. It basically kills any chance of signing him long term and it greatly decreases his trade value, and I dont think they would tag him again next year. So I would much rather trade Mankins now or give him an extension than let him walk after 1 year at $11 million.

In terms of the draft, the only O-Lineman I would take in the top 33 is Pouncey. The problem with him, is he will definitely be a 1st rounder, and likely go before pick 28. So to get him would require either a trade up from 28 or a trade down from 17. I would stay away from all OT's early in this draft because I think they are all overrated and overvalued. Any OT in the first round this draft would be a reach in my opinion. I think we are better of sticking with Light and going after an OT next year when the Tackle class looks much better. In terms of the other OG's in this draft, I like Watkins, but his stock is raising way too high for me. A top 33 pick for a 26/27 year old rookie guard isn't ideal for me. If he fell to 60 I would take him but not 33. He could even sneak into the late 1st which is way too high for my liking. The same goes for Ijalana, who is starting to rise a lot higher than I'm comfortable taking him.

My preference would be to wait until the 3rd/4th rounds where there seems to be some good value. I know a lot of people have Boling at 60, but I think he can be had later on. While he is starting to rise, most draft analysts have him as a 3rd/4th rounder, where I think he would be much better value. The other OG I really like is James Carpenter from Alabama. Both guys seem to fit the Patriot mold, both being seniors that have started at LT in the SEC. I think these guys offer much greater value while still being potentially very good O-Lineman for the Pats.

My Ideal scenario would be OC Rodney Hudson in the early 3rd, Boling in the late 3rd and Carpenter in the early 4th. Give them the opportunity to fight it out for a starting spot, and if not let them sit and learn.

LT- Light (Vollmer)
LG- Connolly, Carpenter
C- Koppen, Hudson
RG- Neal/Kazcur, Boling
RT- Vollmer, Kazcur, Maneri/Late round developmental tackle

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The first thing to consider is whether there will be a CBA by March 4 or whether there will be a lockout or other protracted period of instability which limits the preparation time Coach Scar will have entering the season. Should there be no resolution by the draft NE would seriously need to consider the value of drafting a Watkins who is still learning the trade over drafting a Boling who despite (correctable) flaws is more technically sound and is more versatile. This also applies to other OT to OG conversions. Lower level OL, especially, would likely be considered even more of a risky investment.

Regardless of CBA (in)activity, Vollmer does not move to LT, he's now the anchor on the right with Neal and Kaczur rehabbing.

Tagging Mankins is a way to ensure having an anchor on the left with Light's status pending. Light's situation is likely to be resolved by draft time, which leaves Coach Scar and BB to determine if Maneri or Kaczur will be ready to step in should Light not re-sign, or whether drafting a LT like Castonzo or Sherrod or Carpenter might start the transition on that side.

Should Light re-sign, the tag on Mankins gives the team some flexibility in the draft to consider a less experienced LT like Solder, or an OT-to-OG conversion like Watkins or perhaps Pinkston.

 

[Deus Irae]

The first thing to consider is whether there will be a CBA by March 4 or whether there will be a lockout or other protracted period of instability which limits the preparation time Coach Scar will have entering the season. Should there be no resolution by the draft NE would seriously need to consider the value of drafting a Watkins who is still learning the trade over drafting a Boling who despite (correctable) flaws is more technically sound and is more versatile. This also applies to other OT to OG conversions. Lower level OL, especially, would likely be considered even more of a risky investment.

Regardless of CBA (in)activity, Vollmer does not move to LT, he's now the anchor on the right with Neal and Kaczur rehabbing.

Tagging Mankins is a way to ensure having an anchor on the left with Light's status pending. Light's situation is likely to be resolved by draft time, which leaves Coach Scar and BB to determine if Maneri or Kaczur will be ready to step in should Light not re-sign, or whether drafting a LT like Castonzo or Sherrod or Carpenter might start the transition on that side.

Should Light re-sign, the tag on Mankins gives the team some flexibility in the draft to consider a less experienced LT like Solder, or an OT-to-OG conversion like Watkins or perhaps Pinkston.

Unless there's agreement on the CBA, Light's status will (at least officially) be completely up in the air when the draft takes place. That's one of the things making this year's draft a bit different than usual. As of right now, the draft is going to happen before free agency.

 

[Aßßynormal]

THE NEED AT GUARD

For 187th time on this board, Light is playing LT, backup OT or is playing for another team. Dante will not move Light to another position. I haven't a clue why anyone would think that Light will be re-signed at $5M a year to start a new career as a guard.

Yet, we moved Kaczur from RT to Guard in the pre-season. His injury clouds the results of that move.

I have read your belief that Dante won't try to move Light to guard before but you haven't said why he won't try Light at Guard. Well, it's probably me missing the post. I'd like to know why you're so adament in view of the Kaczur switch. Further, as for the $5m to try to switch to Guard, you forget he'd still be a capable LT backup. That's only two million more than we pay Kaczur ($3M) and Light could be as low $4m on a new contract. Paying Light $4-$5m as a backup or as a LG would be a good investment, certainly better than Kaczur was paid.

 

[mgteich]

1) With Kaczur, we had a player UNDER CONTRACT who was about to be beaten out by Vollmer for his RT spot. We were considering using our 3rd string LG as a starter. Kaczur was considered at a possible option. It did indeed seem reasonable at the time. Kaczur was starter without a job. It was a good idea to see if he could be an option at LG, or RG for that matter. Personally, I agree that Kaczur might have the flexibility to play OG, he certainly has the ability to play LT.

2) You see to believe that Light has no other options than the patriots. You want to sign him for $4M as an OK backup, who could start. I ahve no problem paying Light the $5 or $6M a year it will take to sign him. I have no doubt that, if we sign him that he will start. I have absolutely ZERO CLUE why this board thinks he's not a starter. If Dante agrees, he'll start elsewhere. It really is that simple, unless you think that Light will get more money from the patriots to be a backup than he would get to start elsewhere.

3) I did NOT say that no one is capable of being able to play more than one position. It is OFTEN the case that a LT in college plays LG in the pros. There have been literally hundreds of posts about Light moving to RT or LG (mostly so that Vollmer can play LT). Someone can dig up the analysis and quotes from those who know much more than I do about the x's and o's. They was a very solid conclusion every time that Light is our LT or he is playing elsewhere.

4) I would much rather have Light as a starter than have anyone else.

5) I would rather have a healthy Kaczur as a backup than Light.

6) I have a different draft philosphies depending on whether we need a starter or whether, on the other hand, we are looking for depth and a starter (immediate or 2012. In depth, we look for felxibility. Obviously, we need Game Day backups who can backup more than one position. If we are looking for starters, we need to get the ebst we can at that position, being able to backup another position is a plus, but not essential. We defintely need one pure OG or even two if Mankins is gone. We need a pure center.

At OT, the situation is much more interesting. The question is whether dante is OK with Vollmer and Kaczur as his starters. If so, he can draft a LT with considerable skills at OG. This would be important if Light is re-signed.

Yet, we moved Kaczur from RT to Guard in the pre-season. His injury clouds the results of that move.

I have read your belief that Dante won't try to move Light to guard before but you haven't said why he won't try Light at Guard. Well, it's probably me missing the post. I'd like to know why you're so adament in view of the Kaczur switch. Further, as for the $5m to try to switch to Guard, you forget he'd still be a capable LT backup. That's only two million more than we pay Kaczur ($3M) and Light could be as low $4m on a new contract. Paying Light $4-$5m as a backup or as a LG would be a good investment, certainly better than Kaczur was paid.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yet, we moved Kaczur from RT to Guard in the pre-season. His injury clouds the results of that move.

I have read your belief that Dante won't try to move Light to guard before but you haven't said why he won't try Light at Guard. Well, it's probably me missing the post. I'd like to know why you're so adament in view of the Kaczur switch. Further, as for the $5m to try to switch to Guard, you forget he'd still be a capable LT backup. That's only two million more than we pay Kaczur ($3M) and Light could be as low $4m on a new contract. Paying Light $4-$5m as a backup or as a LG would be a good investment, certainly better than Kaczur was paid.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/312559-yay-nay-shawn-springs-fred-taylor-matt-light.html#post1686859

 

[patsfan-1982]

i dont think any one player will ever change the way the pats go in to the draft they will take the best player or trade down thay get offerd


but i do think Mankins will get a long term contract and the pats will draft a G high to play RG i hope

 

[tuckeverlasting]

I said the EXACT SAME THING as #3. I was told I was comedic relief by one of the village homers around here. He says Todd Light will get 10M a year here or somewhere else as he is one of the top LTs in the league. Laughable. Light would be a good guard. Carimi would be a great RT and a good LT. Aldon SMith, Carimi, LeShoure, Watkins (with dallas #2 got for mankins), Ballard....that's my first 5 picks.

Watkins could come in here and be better than mankins DAY ONE.

ps...yes I know it's "matt light"...."todd" until pats win the SB again. As punishment for the strip sack from suggs.

from your mouth to bb's ear.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I think the best way to go with Mankins is the following -

1. By Franchising him you can put off your final decision on him for a few months. It lets the Pats have more control of where he goes, and it is their best opportunity to maximize his value in any trade scenario. Hopefully it would be resolved by the draft in late April. He'll either sign or be traded.

Is the threat of legal action by the players association going to scare teams from using their franchise tag?

 

[Aßßynormal]

1) With Kaczur, we had a player UNDER CONTRACT who was about to be beaten out by Vollmer for his RT spot. We were considering using our 3rd string LG as a starter. Kaczur was considered at a possible option. It did indeed seem reasonable at the time. Kaczur was starter without a job. It was a good idea to see if he could be an option at LG, or RG for that matter. Personally, I agree that Kaczur might have the flexibility to play OG, he certainly has the ability to play LT.

2) You see to believe that Light has no other options than the patriots. You want to sign him for $4M as an OK backup, who could start. I ahve no problem paying Light the $5 or $6M a year it will take to sign him. I have no doubt that, if we sign him that he will start. I have absolutely ZERO CLUE why this board thinks he's not a starter. If Dante agrees, he'll start elsewhere. It really is that simple, unless you think that Light will get more money from the patriots to be a backup than he would get to start elsewhere.

3) I did NOT say that no one is capable of being able to play more than one position. It is OFTEN the case that a LT in college plays LG in the pros. There have been literally hundreds of posts about Light moving to RT or LG (mostly so that Vollmer can play LT). Someone can dig up the analysis and quotes from those who know much more than I do about the x's and o's. They was a very solid conclusion every time that Light is our LT or he is playing elsewhere.

4) I would much rather have Light as a starter than have anyone else.

5) I would rather have a healthy Kaczur as a backup than Light.

6) I have a different draft philosphies depending on whether we need a starter or whether, on the other hand, we are looking for depth and a starter (immediate or 2012. In depth, we look for felxibility. Obviously, we need Game Day backups who can backup more than one position. If we are looking for starters, we need to get the ebst we can at that position, being able to backup another position is a plus, but not essential. We defintely need one pure OG or even two if Mankins is gone. We need a pure center.

At OT, the situation is much more interesting. The question is whether dante is OK with Vollmer and Kaczur as his starters. If so, he can draft a LT with considerable skills at OG. This would be important if Light is re-signed.

I agree that if we resign him, he should start somewhere. There appear to be a lot of options and possibly playing a rookie at LG prepartory to taking over at LT is a good point.

 

[MaineMan]

Is the threat of legal action by the players association going to scare teams from using their franchise tag?

I've heard this before and I'm not quite sure I understand it. The teams are still operating under a CBA that is presumably valid until it expires at the end of the league year, yes? If so, then can't they still tag a player whose contract is expiring? In fact, aren't they required to tag him if they want to keep him?

Or is it the situation where they can't tag him until his contract expires, which, in nearly all cases, I guess, would be simultaneous with the expiration of the current CBA (at which point, tags wouldn't exist)?

 

[mgteich]

If teams don't use their tags, they lose them. Of course, the new CBA could provide for a 2nd round of tags; this seems extreley unlikely.

I've heard this before and I'm not quite sure I understand it. The teams are still operating under a CBA that is presumably valid until it expires at the end of the league year, yes? If so, then can't they still tag a player whose contract is expiring? In fact, aren't they required to tag him if they want to keep him?

Or is it the situation where they can't tag him until his contract expires, which, in nearly all cases, I guess, would be simultaneous with the expiration of the current CBA (at which point, tags wouldn't exist)?

 

[dryheat44]

I've heard this before and I'm not quite sure I understand it. The teams are still operating under a CBA that is presumably valid until it expires at the end of the league year, yes? If so, then can't they still tag a player whose contract is expiring? In fact, aren't they required to tag him if they want to keep him?

Or is it the situation where they can't tag him until his contract expires, which, in nearly all cases, I guess, would be simultaneous with the expiration of the current CBA (at which point, tags wouldn't exist)?

I tend to think any franchise tags place between now and the new CBA (assuming there's no agreement by March) would be ruled invalid. The language is pretty clear in the CBA that the franchise tag can be used before every season that is covered by the CBA. It seems an open-and-shut case if a grievance is filed and it's arbitrated. 2011 is not covered under the current CBA, therefore franchise tags aren't allowed.

Of course, this is something that the Union could concede in negotiations, but there's a real possibility that any tag placed by a team between now and March 5 would simply be removed. In which case another team could present a free agent an offer.

The extreme case here is that the Titans (or somebody) would present Peyton Manning an enormous offer after he is tagged, which he signs since the Union's stance is that there are no tags barring a new agreement. After all, Goodell has said that teams are free to sign free agents regardless of the presence of a CBA. If no owner presents Manning, Mankins, V Jax, and other UFAs with a contract, it's a pretty good collusion case for the Union.

I suppose the downside of that play is that Polian and Irsay will fight like hell to get a clause in the new CBA to invalidate every free agent contract signed between March 6th and the start of the new CBA. But if you're a team that needs a QB, it's worth a shot.

 

[MaineMan]

I tend to think any franchise tags place between now and the new CBA (assuming there's no agreement by March) would be ruled invalid. The language is pretty clear in the CBA that the franchise tag can be used before every season that is covered by the CBA. It seems an open-and-shut case if a grievance is filed and it's arbitrated. 2011 is not covered under the current CBA, therefore franchise tags aren't allowed......

So, this will be tested now that the Pats have franchised Mankins. Really, it pretty much needed to be tested in order to get an "official clarification". It would probably be risky, from a legal standpoint, for teams to just assume that tags are not viable.

Seems to me that your first impulse, "ruled invalid", would be closer than "not allowed" in that, if your interpretation of the CBA language is correct, tags are effectively "non-existent" for 2011.

 

[jeffbiologist]

So, this will be tested now that the Pats have franchised Mankins. Really, it pretty much needed to be tested in order to get an "official clarification". It would probably be risky, from a legal standpoint, for teams to just assume that tags are not viable.

Seems to me that your first impulse, "ruled invalid", would be closer than "not allowed" in that, if your interpretation of the CBA language is correct, tags are effectively "non-existent" for 2011.

I think most teams realize more than the players do what is going to happen to the CBA. The teams surely tagged players as another bargaining chip to bring to the negotiating table, legal or not. There is very little to lose in tagging players if you know you wont be paying them, right? I suspect more tags used now than ever as a show of force by the owners.
Bringing it back on topic, tagging players should have zero impact on the draft as teams will be forced to fill holes normally reserved for FAs. I think this will eventually devalue most FAs as the needs will be lessened. For players at the end of their careers or near it they will be under more pressure than ever to make that last year's pay. An example of this IMHO is Neal, a player who most likely will come back to finish the contract to find possibly 2 sets of draft picks(if we lose the year)as competition.

 

[MaineMan]

I think most teams realize more than the players do what is going to happen to the CBA. The teams surely tagged players as another bargaining chip to bring to the negotiating table, legal or not. There is very little to lose in tagging players if you know you wont be paying them, right? I suspect more tags used now than ever as a show of force by the owners.
Bringing it back on topic, tagging players should have zero impact on the draft as teams will be forced to fill holes normally reserved for FAs. I think this will eventually devalue most FAs as the needs will be lessened. For players at the end of their careers or near it they will be under more pressure than ever to make that last year's pay. An example of this IMHO is Neal, a player who most likely will come back to finish the contract to find possibly 2 sets of draft picks(if we lose the year)as competition.

Agree with this. The bolded part is an element that, IMO, hasn't received enough consideration or discussion.

Which brings up a question that's been knocking around in my brain: If there's no FA before the draft, is it possible for the league to unilaterally expand the draft to more rounds (since teams won't be allowed to go after UDFAs either)?

Actually, I just thought of another one: Are compensatory picks at all dependent on the existence of a CBA?

 

[patfanken]

I've heard this before and I'm not quite sure I understand it. The teams are still operating under a CBA that is presumably valid until it expires at the end of the league year, yes? If so, then can't they still tag a player whose contract is expiring? In fact, aren't they required to tag him if they want to keep him?

Or is it the situation where they can't tag him until his contract expires, which, in nearly all cases, I guess, would be simultaneous with the expiration of the current CBA (at which point, tags wouldn't exist)?

It seems like there are a number of players who are being franchised all over the league. BTW if I were a player I'd sign the tender right away. I'm pretty sure if you sign the tender the team would have to pay you whether a new CBA is done or not. Its the best shot at security for 2011 the players have (though this mediation things is very promising).

2 points

1. Moving Light to LG is not only doable it makes sense....a lot of sense. It would NOT be a big dislocation for Light. Staying on the left side, he will be seeing the same looks he's been seeing for 10 years. LT's for the Pats do a lot of pulling, so moving to G again, would not be a shock. Light is very quick for an OLman and wouldn't have a problem at the second level vs 3-4 looks.

That being said I would have no problem if the Pats took a quality OT with one of their first 3 picks and moving him to LG (much like we did with Mankins) and keep Light at LT and Volmer at RT. I just like moving Light to LG more. Plus now is the time to move Volmer.to LT

2. I don't understand the disrespect for Light. Its not like he had a bad year, quite the reverse. Didn't he just come back from Hawaii? My bet is that if he was moved to LG, I would fully expect him to be voted there again.

 

[townes]

They need an interior OL out lof this draft whether they re-sign Mankins or not. Wisniewski at #28 or #33, or Pouncey in the same range is fine with me.