Mike Wallace = target for Pats deep threat?

[Ring 6]

That may be true, but Hernandez seems to drop a lot of balls. And it seemed to me that as the year went on, he seemed that he got a mild case of alligator arms in the middle of the field.

We all know Denver is a ready made trade partner should we decide to unload Hernandez.

Add in that we can take Fleenor at #31 and improve on the blocking the Hernandez does not do well while sacrificing very little as a route runner and receiver.

The only question is what would BB want from Denver to pull the trigger on that deal?

That is simply ridiculous. Hernandez has a unique skill set. You want to trade him in order to use a #1 pick on a TE? That is just crazy.
Why is Denver a trade partner? Hernandez is a perfect fit in our system and a waste of talent in theirs.
Your alligator arms remark is a lame attempt to disparage the player to strengthen your weak argument.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Did you even read the article you cited? It was a free agency signing, with the trade agreed to by the teams just to avoid the hassle that goes with the signing.

(1) Officially, it was a trade.
(2) From Kraft's explanation at the time, it wasn't just to avoid "the hassle" of an offer sheet, but also as the potential bad blood that might result from having to add poison pills, etc. [As an added bonus, it means they didn't have to worry about re-negotiating those out at a later point; they were able to sign Welker to a "real" offer.]

 

[ctpatsfan77]

In regards to drops

Last year he had 45rec 9drops, this year 79rec 5drops and still managed to catch 70-72% of the balls thrown his way.

It only takes a couple of drops in key situations to get a bad wrap. He was pretty clutch in the SB until that 1 drop at the end.

His improvement has been off the charts imo, in more areas than just receiving.

As Reiss noted, his play time spiked from about 50% to over 75%.

 

[ProudestRyno]

cherry picking. No one cares for YPC. Malcolm Floyd and Johnny Knox were #1 and #2 in YPC this year. They both combined caught 80 balls and scored 7 td's.


You lost your dimishing credibility completely with this excuse.
Let's also note that Colston plays in a dome, and hasn't had to face the Ravens twice a year during his career

So, lets cherry pick away stats of every dome receiver since well you know they benefitted from the dome, maybe not the QB like Brees.. Since out goes stats for Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Megatron, Fitzgerald, Moss, Largent....let's throw out Rice too since he played in sunny Cali and the NFC west was garbage those years and he never played Bears, Giants, Cowboys 2x a year

In that case let's also throw out Brady and Moss stats all together since AFC East has been garbage for last decade with vaunted defenses of Bills, Dolphins, Jets. Should not count since they did not play in Ravens, Steelers twice a year.

Amaaaaaaazing logic

You're dumb, go away.


And YES you have been cherry picking stats this whole time clinging to the point that Colston has averaged more catches per year than Wallace has...

Thats the one stat that Colston has on Wallace, so by definition YOU ARE CHERRY PICKING STATS to attempt to prove your point.

Colston has more catches, but his targets are shorter throws than a lot of targets Wallace gets, therefore the probability of a completion is much higher. Colston averaged 7.6 targets per game last year, while reeling in 5.7 catches per game. Wallace? 7.1 targets per, while catching 4.5 per game. Sure Colston has more catches, but Wallace is a deep WR (for the most part) running routes that require throws that have a MUCH lesser probability for completion. So for you to say Colston's catch totals are more impressive is YES, like some said.. Cherry picking stats without understanding the full meaning of them, and the context in which they were attained.

But, I'm confident that's a bit too much information for your small mind to be able to process.


Colston is great, but he's not the deep, field stretching WR we need. Wallace is the type of WR the Patriots need.

They need someone with a high YPC. For you to say no one cares about that just proves everyone's point here that you have no clue what you're talking about. Keep rating players based on Fantasy Football, though.

 

[patfanken]

It's not about overall yards, Ken. It's about the ability to beat the league's best defenses by forcing them to play honest.

As for the "necessity", BB made that clear last year when he traded for Johnson.

No one is saying that it wouldn't be NICE to have a WR with Wallace's skill set. And as you said, BB confirmed that when he brought in Johnson (even if it didn't work out). HOWEVER, the very effectiveness of the Pats offense in ALL offensive categories (yds, scoring, etc) definitively has proven that having such a player is NOT a NECESSITY, for this offense to function among the league leaders

The point I am trying to make, and you don't seem to get, is that, while it is proper and makes sense to pursue the "speed threat on the outside WR", its does not make good sense to use high end assets (first round draft picks, or max contract FAs) to acquire that skill set.

It makes no sense at all to have 2 WRs making top end money, when your most productive receivers are your TEs. Now tell me that you aren't going to resign Welker and Branch, and THEN a Wallace signing or using a high end asset on a WR becomes plausible. The Pats are NOT going to pay 2 WRs max contracts, when WR is THE most replaceable position in the league.

 

[Deus Irae]

No one is saying that it wouldn't be NICE to have a WR with Wallace's skill set. And as you said, BB confirmed that when he brought in Johnson (even if it didn't work out). HOWEVER, the very effectiveness of the Pats offense in ALL offensive categories (yds, scoring, etc) definitively have proven that having such a player is NOT a NECESSITY, for this offense to function among the league leaders

The point I am trying to make, and you don't seem to get, is that, while it is proper and makes sense to pursue the "speed threat on the outside WR", its does not make good sense to use high end assets (first round draft picks, or max contract FAs) to acquire that skill set.

It makes no sense at all to have 2 WRs making top end money, when your most productive receivers are your TEs. Now tell me that you aren't going to resign Welker and Branch, and THEN a Wallace signing or using a high end asset on a WR becomes plausible.

1.) "function among the league leaders" is meaningless if you can't function against the league's top defenses.

2.) You continually act as if I'm not getting what you post. That's not the case, Ken. I sometimes reject what you post, because you post a pretty significant number of what I consider to be bad ideas/notions, such as the one you're posting about here. However, rejecting is not the same as failing to get.

3.) Branch is aging and in decline. He needs to be replaced as the starting wideout. Now, you can either do that through free agency, and pay according to likely talent level (Best players = higher price tags), or you can do it through the draft. You're welcome to advocate being cheap. BB spent $6 million AND a draft pick on the problem last year, and that was for an older player who was coming off of a down year. You might want to have a talk with him, because he doesn't seem to be on the same page you are.

4.) Your "makes no sense" argument makes no sense. The TEs you're talking about aren't making big money and, by the time their deals are up, the cap will supposedly be making a big jump upwards. Also, Branch isn't going to be breaking the bank, so his re-signing is all but irrelevant in terms of money. The only question is whether a team can carry 2 high priced receivers. The answer, of course, is that it can.

5.) The most productive receiver on the team is not a TE. The most productive receiver on the team is Wes Welker.

In other words, Ken, you've gotten pretty much everything here either wrong or at least in conflict with the recent actions of the head coach you spend so much time insisting is brilliant on the level of the all-time geniuses.

 

[Bonzo]

My pie-in-the-sky scenario looks like this:

VJack OR Wallace
Welker
Wayne OR Lloyd
Gronk
Hernandez

Plus our stable of young running backs.

Plenty could change over the next month of course, but it looks like a buyer's market for WR in free agency. (It is a decidedly seller's market for Mario Williams.) I expect Branch can be brought back on the cheap and is a great depth option, given his rapport with Brady. Then we address D (and maybe interior OL) via the draft.

 

[PatsfanCP]

Bill needs to do whatever it takes to win.

Superbowl 2012 or bust.

 

[MP-Logick]

Did you even read the article you cited? It was a free agency signing, with the trade agreed to by the teams just to avoid the hassle that goes with the signing.

Did you read the article? Apparently not.

 

[patsfaninpa]

My pie-in-the-sky scenario looks like this:

VJack OR Wallace
Welker
Wayne OR Lloyd
Gronk
Hernandez

Plus our stable of young running backs.

Plenty could change over the next month of course, but it looks like a buyer's market for WR in free agency. (It is a decidedly seller's market for Mario Williams.) I expect Branch can be brought back on the cheap and is a great depth option, given his rapport with Brady. Then we address D (and maybe interior OL) via the draft.

Are you eliminating the rb position? Why pay a 5th receiver that much money? Major waste of cap dollars.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

No wallace...lloyd and lloyd only

 

[supafly]

My pie-in-the-sky scenario looks like this:

VJack OR Wallace
Welker
Wayne OR Lloyd
Gronk
Hernandez

Plus our stable of young running backs.

Plenty could change over the next month of course, but it looks like a buyer's market for WR in free agency. (It is a decidedly seller's market for Mario Williams.) I expect Branch can be brought back on the cheap and is a great depth option, given his rapport with Brady. Then we address D (and maybe interior OL) via the draft.

I realize that you said this is your 'dream' scenario, so you aren't claiming for it to necessarily be realistic. That is understandable.

I think that Welker is all but tagged this yr, so he will probably almost definitely be here for 2012. That takes care of one of those.

Then I would think that the lower tiered FA's that you want would be of interest, removing of course Wallace and VJackson.

I think that adding either Colston, Wayne, or Lloyd to the mix would be quite an improvement--especially if they retain Branch to keep as depth also.

No way they play out your 'pie in the sky' wish, but I think we'd all be pretty happy with an additional downfield threat to keep the defense honest and open up the underneath routes more. Those will certainly remain our bread and butter options with Welker, Gronkowski, and Hernandez. Then we'd also have either Wayne, Colston, or Lloyd as a "replacement" for Branch's depth for approx. the same money that they gave Ocho last yr (about 6 million).

That would be capped off of course by switching Ocho's depth and increasing the production there by also retaining Branch too, but isn't 100% 'necessary,' although it would be ideal.

I may be in the minority with thinking that I'd rather have the additional free agent money spent on the offensive production, as that will continue to remain our biggest attacking point. The defense did make quite an improvement last yr, and the addition of the draft choices (relatively cheap) on that side of the ball + some mid-level FA acquisitions (one or two that are not considered too costly) on defense could really improve that side of the ball.

A better, more potent offense would have/should have = a SB win this yr, and that is depite the flaws on defense. By shoring up the defense with 3 or 4 different names in some areas (CB, S, and front 7) via the draft and a couple/few mid-level FA's, BOTH sides of the ball can be improved.

Of course, BB may feel differently and rightfully so. He may feel as though the defense is the side where more FA money is needed. I would also be just fine with substantially improving the defense with 'just' some minor additions on offense; although I will always feel that our offense should be as potent as possible since that is what we live off of for the most part.

To bottom line it---there arern't as many "holes" on the team in my opinion as some think, and the ones that are there can and should be addressed via the draft and FA this yr one way or another.

There is no reason (besides major injury) that this team should not be in serious competition in 2012 with some realistic FA and draft moves.

 

[Patriot Missile]

A lot of people out there saying that Welker will be franchised and that's fine. It's part of the business. When I hear they are going to tag Welker and then go out and sign a big name like Wallace,Colston or VJax and give him a full contract that changes things a little bit.

People are underestimating the human factor here. If you're Wes and you get the 1 year commitment after you've had 3 or 4 100 catch seasons in a row, been a valuable asset to the franchise, what is he thinking when the new guy comes in and gets the deal he's been looking for?

Sounds like a potential hold out to me.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It's not about overall yards, Ken. It's about the ability to beat the league's best defenses by forcing them to play honest.

As for the "necessity", BB made that clear last year when he traded for Johnson.

Now you're comparing a player traded for at the cost of a 5th and a one time $6M payout to Ken's issue with trading a 1st and a top tier contract for a legit #1 outside/deep threat WR in his prime.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

A lot of people out there saying that Welker will be franchised and that's fine. It's part of the business. When I hear they are going to tag Welker and then go out and sign a big name like Wallace,Colston or VJax and give him a full contract that changes things a little bit.

People are underestimating the human factor here. If you're Wes and you get the 1 year commitment after you've had 3 or 4 100 catch seasons in a row, been a valuable asset to the franchise, what is he thinking when the new guy comes in and gets the deal he's been looking for?

Sounds like a potential hold out to me.

I think Welker is one of those least likely to holdout guys, but yeah, that might do it.

So many here want to bring in all these proven big name talents. Screw the draft picks, too, cause Bill never picks the guys they covet. I read yesterday that Detroit, who has finally gotten the total failure monkey off it's back but failed to get over the hump playoff wise will, if they tag the impending FA LB some here covet, will have 4 players taking up $61M against the $120M cap. And that is not a formula that is going to win next year, either. Even when the cap hits are divided equally between O and D, that's the kind of top heavy roster formula that sank the SS Indianapolis. Right now we have a top 4 taking up about $40M and if we franchise Welker we will have a top 5 taking up $50M. If we add another top tier WR and a top tier defensive player we will be at $75M for the top 7 players on the team. And that impacts the remaining 45 left to divy up the remaining $45M to the extent nobody better get hurt for like 20 weeks...or Bill is going to be fielding 19 guys who you never heard of who never set foot on an NFL field before, like Indy ended up fielding in 2007.

The Pats need to improve the outside WR position incrementally, as they need to improve the pass rush and secondary. Provided of course first they don't first weaken it by failing to extend the guys who helped get them to the championship game to begin with last season. The offense needs more mere incremental and limited upgrading than the defense, which could stand a substantial talent infusion at the front and back ends even if the UFA's return. And every substantial talent upgrade you make comes at the price of a potential downgrade somewhere else.

That's what fans refuse to deal with but Bill has to balance constantly. If you give up both a 1st round pick and a top tier deal to improve the offense, it's going to severely limit your ability to upgrade the defense and may ultimately as you noted weaken the offense.

 

[Deus Irae]

A lot of people out there saying that Welker will be franchised and that's fine. It's part of the business. When I hear they are going to tag Welker and then go out and sign a big name like Wallace,Colston or VJax and give him a full contract that changes things a little bit.

People are underestimating the human factor here. If you're Wes and you get the 1 year commitment after you've had 3 or 4 100 catch seasons in a row, been a valuable asset to the franchise, what is he thinking when the new guy comes in and gets the deal he's been looking for?

Sounds like a potential hold out to me.

What in Welker's character has ever led you to believe that he's got an ego that demands he be the team's top moneymaker at his position?

 

[patfanken]

You know DI, I don't think anyone else on this board is in love with the sound of his own "voice" than you. You consistently act as if your words are the final authority, even when shown differently

1.) "function among the league leaders" is meaningless if you can't function against the league's top defenses.

ANY offense would have more problems "functioning" against a top defense than one that isn't. You are hardly breaking new ground here. You can't score 30+ points against everyone.

2.) You continually act as if I'm not getting what you post. That's not the case, Ken. I sometimes reject what you post, because you post a pretty significant number of what I consider to be bad ideas/notions, such as the one you're posting about here. However, rejecting is not the same as failing to get.

That's not an answer. That's a poor defense. You DON'T get what I'm saying, not even close. Let me try again, because your self appointed position on Mt. Olympus is evidently keeping you from hearing what's going on among the rest of us.

Its not about wanting to get a WR who can "stretch" the defense. EVERYONE would like that. It is ALL about determining what resources you are willing to give up to attempt to gain those skills. You think that BB will be willing to go "all in" on the WR position and give up a first round pick AND a max contract to fill that perceived need. And to back that up you use Ocho's $6MM contract.

I think that BB WILL NOT do that and History will back me up. He's NEVER used a first round pick on a WR in the past 12 years. He cut the most talented WR in the past 20 years in favor of 2 guys who couldn't "stretch" the defense and won 3 superbowls in the process. When he DID invest heavily in a player who could "stretch" the defense, he had a record breaking offense an NO Lombardi's

BB WILL look to find a field stretching WR this off season, but is NOT going to expend the kind of resources that it would take to get Mike Wallace. He is not going to spend $8MM+ on Wes Welker AND sign ANOTHER WR to a similar kind of contract. He is NOT going to spend 17% of his total cap space on 2 WRs. He never has and never will.

No DI you definitely DON'T get my point, otherwise you wouldn't have wasted your time on your fuzzy response.

3.) Branch is aging and in decline. He needs to be replaced as the starting wideout. Now, you can either do that through free agency, and pay according to likely talent level (Best players = higher price tags), or you can do it through the draft. You're welcome to advocate being cheap. BB spent $6 million AND a draft pick on the problem last year, and that was for an older player who was coming off of a down year. You might want to have a talk with him, because he doesn't seem to be on the same page you are.

On this point we agree. I don't think Branch is an answer at WR any longer. He has real difficulty getting open against physical press coverage. I would speculate that a great majority of his yards came against soft zone coverage.

And I'm not advocating being "cheap". I'm just not willing to spend first round picks or $8-10MM/yr contracts on his replacement.

4.) Your "makes no sense" argument makes no sense. The TEs you're talking about aren't making big money and, by the time their deals are up, the cap will supposedly be making a big jump upwards. Also, Branch isn't going to be breaking the bank, so his re-signing is all but irrelevant in terms of money. The only question is whether a team can carry 2 high priced receivers. The answer, of course, is that it can.

Yes DI, of course, the Pats could accommodate 2 max contracts at WR, but at WHAT expense.

You are looking myopically at the situation. What would make the Pats more likely to win a superbowl, using their resources to find a field stretching WR OR using them to improve your defense.

But since you are being obtuse, let me make it even more simple for you. You have limited resources. You have a very high ranking offense. You have a very low ranking defense. Given that where would it make more sense to spend those limited resources,

Wouldn't the offense, even if they made NO changes, be better if they were able to get 2-3 more possessions per game because the defense was better.

BOTTOM LINE - Sure look to improve the WR position, but don't spend too large a percentage of your resources to do it. I'd be fine spending Ocho's $6MM on an upgrade. I'd be OK spending a 2nd round pick on a WR (though I'd prefer it was a 3rd or 4th round pick.) But getting back to the original point of this thread, I would NOT be OK with spending a first round pick plus a max contract in order to get Mike Wallace

 

[Patriot Missile]

What in Welker's character has ever led you to believe that he's got an ego that demands he be the team's top moneymaker at his position?

Sounds like a "potential" hold out to me.

I don't know his true character just like you don't. But I would not rule out the human element when it comes to self worth and respect.

 

[patfanken]

What in Welker's character has ever led you to believe that he's got an ego that demands he be the team's top moneymaker at his position?

well on this we agree. I think Welker fully understands that his success is partially dependent on the system he's in, AND the QB he's playing with.

I'm sure that he realizes that he's now on borrowed time. At his size and age, he should know that he doesn't have much time left, and when it starts to go, it will go fast.

In an ideal world, I think 2 years at $16MM would be the fairest deal for both sides. Though its unlikely to work out that way.

BTW- I just read or PFT, that the franchise tags this year are significantly lower because of the new CBA's way of calculating them. So if the Pats did franchise Wes, it would only be for around $8MM, down from over $10MM in 2011. Other positions saw similar drops.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

You're dumb, go away.


And YES you have been cherry picking stats this whole time clinging to the point that Colston has averaged more catches per year than Wallace has...

Thats the one stat that Colston has on Wallace, so by definition YOU ARE CHERRY PICKING STATS to attempt to prove your point.

Colston has more catches, but his targets are shorter throws than a lot of targets Wallace gets, therefore the probability of a completion is much higher. Colston averaged 7.6 targets per game last year, while reeling in 5.7 catches per game. Wallace? 7.1 targets per, while catching 4.5 per game. Sure Colston has more catches, but Wallace is a deep WR (for the most part) running routes that require throws that have a MUCH lesser probability for completion. So for you to say Colston's catch totals are more impressive is YES, like some said.. Cherry picking stats without understanding the full meaning of them, and the context in which they were attained.

But, I'm confident that's a bit too much information for your small mind to be able to process.


Colston is great, but he's not the deep, field stretching WR we need. Wallace is the type of WR the Patriots need.

They need someone with a high YPC. For you to say no one cares about that just proves everyone's point here that you have no clue what you're talking about. Keep rating players based on Fantasy Football, though.

Your IQ of an amoeba brain can Read ? If so, read the link slowly 10x and comeback. Your answer is in the link, then again clueless hillbilly like you may have tough time registering the logic and differences between Wallace and Colston.

Stick to watching GA football.


Patriots Mailbag: LaRon Landry May Be Answer to Pats Problems on Defense - New England Patriots - NESN.com



Is there any realistic chance of getting Mike Wallace? I know he is a restricted free agent, but does the fact that the Steelers have no salary cap space make it easier to potentially sign him? Also, which first-rounder would the Steelers get? The highest (from the Saints) or the allotted Patriot one? Thanks!
--John

To the first question, the Steelers have the option of controlling Wallace's rights because he is a restricted free agent (less than four years of NFL service). Therefore, the Steelers will likely place a tender on Wallace. There are five levels of tenders, though the dollar amounts haven't been officially released for this offseason, to my knowledge. If the Steelers place the highest-priority tender on Wallace, it would be for a one-year contract, likely in the neighborhood of $3-4 million. It would also put a heavy amount of protection on Wallace by costing another team a first-round draft pick if they wanted to sign him, similar to how the Jets stole running back Curtis Martin from the Patriots in 1998.

So, let's say the Steelers give him that tender. The Patriots could then offer him a contract, let's say for four years and $25 million. The Steelers would have a week to either match the offer or let him sign with the Patriots. If they match it, he returns to the Steelers. If the Steelers decline it, the Patriots would sign him, but they'd have to fork over a first-round draft pick, which is a gigantic price. Since the Patriots have two first-round picks, I believe they'd have to give up their allotted selection (No. 31), though I'm not completely certain on that just yet.

There's also the possibility of a sign-and-trade, which would allow the Steelers and Patriots to work out their own terms for compensation. That's how the Patriots acquired wide receiver Wes Welker from the Dolphins in 2007.

To the second question, I'm not sure Wallace fits the Patriots' system. He's strictly a deep threat, though he has shown an ability to read defenses and run better routes in the last year. He isn't anywhere close to a finished product, and I'm not sure if that would be intriguing to the Patriots, who could continue developing him, or it would turn them off, instead preferring someone who could step in and contribute immediately. I'd speculate it would be the latter.
And finally, yes, the Steelers have to get creative to meander around their financial woes. Earlier this month, NFL.com reported they'll be $22.5 million over the cap entering the new league year, which will cause them to release some players and rework some contracts. My guess is that will impact Wallace in the sense that the Steelers won't want to place a franchise tag on him, which would run them about $9 million.


There are four big free agent wide receivers: Vincent Jackson, Marques Colston, Dwayne Bowe, and Mike Wallace. Think the Pats try and make a move? Thanks.
--Ryan Casey, Philadelphia

Don't forget Reggie Wayne, too. I think Jackson could be a fit, but reports out of San Diego insist he wants to stay with the Chargers. Bowe is an elite athlete, but there's something missing with him. He also quit on the Chiefs when they tried to upset the Steelers late last season, failing to reach for a ball that was intercepted behind him. Of course, I already got to Wallace and Lloyd.

Colston would make some sense because he has done well in a sophisticated passing system, and he's got the attributes of a player the Patriots need at the position. He is also close with Arrington, as they went to Hofstra together. I'd rank Colston at the top of the four players you listed, but he'll probably command too much money. Wayne and Lloyd still appear to be the two most realistic options in free agency.