Restricted Free Agents

[mgteich]

I would like us to make an offer to Wallace, but I don't expect him to play for us. Few RFA's end up playing for other teams. In the end end, the team matches. Consider that we need to offer Wallace enough money so that it is beyond what PITT will match plus give up a top draft pick.

 

[Ivan]

I would like us to make an offer to Wallace, but I don't expect him to play for us. Few RFA's end up playing for other teams. In the end end, the team matches. Consider that we need to offer Wallace enough money so that it is beyond what PITT will match plus give up a to[p draft pick.

Pitt isn't a team to play poker with, they set their limit and stick to it and overpaying for Wallace is a really bad idea. I'm all for going after the right RFA's but he wouldn't be a good example of that.

 

[Aßßynormal]

Wallace is good value at the 31st pick. Paying him should be doable since he has a limited number of teams that can afford to both pay him AND give up the pick. I think we go after him.

We'd still need a draft pick, somebody large and a decent deep threat (say: Tommy Streeter or similar) in the infamous third round.

The only way around going after Wallace would be to sign Garcon, a lesser player who would cost us a lot of money because many will be after him (UFA).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I would like us to make an offer to Wallace, but I don't expect him to play for us. Few RFA's end up playing for other teams. In the end end, the team matches. Consider that we need to offer Wallace enough money so that it is beyond what PITT will match plus give up a to[p draft pick.

So why waste the time? One reason (beyond the first) so few high tendered players ever get signed to an offer sheet is teams don't want to be tied up for 7 days with their cap availability while alternate targets get snapped up.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Wallace is good value at the 31st pick. Paying him should be doable since he has a limited number of teams that can afford to both pay him AND give up the pick. I think we go after him.

We'd still need a draft pick, somebody large and a decent deep threat (say: Tommy Streeter or similar) in the infamous third round.

The only way around going after Wallace would be to sign Garcon, a lesser player who would cost us a lot of money because many will be after him (UFA).

Think Bill would have ever used a first pre 2011 to draft a WR he had to pay $8-10M per? Hypothetically speaking of course because we know he didn't... That would be beyond trading up for a WR the way Atlanta did last season - something Bill advised Dimetroff not to do.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Giving up a First round pick AND signing him to a big contract. No thanks.

 

[Deus Irae]

I would like us to make an offer to Wallace, but I don't expect him to play for us. Few RFA's end up playing for other teams. In the end end, the team matches. Consider that we need to offer Wallace enough money so that it is beyond what PITT will match plus give up a to[p draft pick.

As far as getting past a Pittsburgh match, it's not the amount of money as much as it is the amount of money that goes against the cap this season.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

At last report Pittsburgh was $12.5M under the cap pending tenders for RFA or ERFA. We are about $14M under pending ours now that Welker is tagged.

 

[Aßßynormal]

Think Bill would have ever used a first pre 2011 to draft a WR he had to pay $8-10M per? Hypothetically speaking of course because we know he didn't... That would be beyond trading up for a WR the way Atlanta did last season - something Bill advised Dimetroff not to do.

The problem with Julio Jones was two-fold:

1) no track record, just high potential

2) a future high draft pick beyond the year he was drafted was due

Neither applies to Wallace, (proven player, a single draft pick only in this year). I want a legitimate deep threat, I'd settle with Garcon but I'd prefer Wallace.

First, 31st is basically a a very high second round pick. Only somewhat more than we paid for C. Jackson ....... I say this because I think of last years trade with NO gave us the extra first (along with Vereen) and the necessary flexibility to be able to make such a deal. I think, despite the money, that Wallace would be a good value (as a proven player, still young). He'd fit in with Brady's window AND must be defended as a real honest threat to score on any play (as '07 Moss was).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

First, 31st is basically a a very high second round pick. Only somewhat more than we paid for C. Jackson ....... I say this because I think of last years trade with NO gave us the extra first (along with Vereen) and the necessary flexibility to be able to make such a deal. I think, despite the money, that Wallace would be a good value (as a proven player, still young). He'd fit in with Brady's window AND must be defended as a real honest threat to score on any play (as '07 Moss was).

The difference is that Jackson's contract was closer to 4 years/$4M than 4 years/$40M as Wallace's would be.

 

[Ivan]

Giving up a first when there are plenty of other options available for just the price of their contract doesn't make much sense.

 

[Aßßynormal]

We stole Moss in '07. This time we are going to have to pay. We can afford a single 'big' FA and we've sufficient high draft picks to spare. In this case, it's time we used them.

Do you want to go without a deep threat for another season or pay nearly as much to a lesser player such as Garcon (who is good, just not a 'Star' player). I can see VJax as well but he will cost even more since many teams will be after him. Wallace's RFA status will limit the number of suitors and he's about five years younger than VJax. Same problem with Colston.

 

[Deus Irae]

The difference is that Jackson's contract was closer to 4 years/$4M than 4 years/$40M as Wallace's would be.

The Patriots spent a 2nd and a 3rd on Jackson, and he was gone in a flash. He never panned out anywhere in the league. They have recently spent a 3rd on Price and a 3rd on Tate. How many bad draft attempts should we see the team make before we get on board with giving up a pick in order to get a player who's already demonstrated top end ability in the NFL?

I've said before that I can understand the arguments on both sides of the Wallace situation, and I can, but the "no" side of the equation has shown a strong tendency to just cry about the pick and/or money without acknowledging what the cost of not getting a receiver has already been and may continue to be.

 

[Rob0729]

A couple of things:

1.) I am not convinced Wallace is a good fit. The guy comes from a very simple offense without a complicated routes or presnap reads. It is basically Roethlisberger running around until someone gets open.

2.) The Steelers will have a hard time matching any significant offer if the Pats do decide to do it because not only do they not have a lot of money this year, but all the renegotiations this year has hindered what they can absorb vs. the cap at least until 2014 when the cap will most likely explode.

3.) The Pats need more money, they can easily free up more cash by renegotiating with Ochocinco, Light, and Brady. Both Ochocinco and Light are already reportedly in talks to do so or at least approached (since Light hasn't decided if he will retire, he probably isn't negotiating) and Brady is simple of converting salary to bonuses.

4.) If the Pats feel that Wallace is a difference maker, the first rounder is a non-issue. Wallace at this point is more talented than anyone who will be available at 31.

5.) One thing that might be a factor is Welker, the Pats may not be willing to give any WR more than they are willing to give to Welker. They have had this policy in the past to not pay outside players more than certain players on the roster.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

How many bad draft attempts should we see the team make before we get on board with giving up a pick in order to get a player who's already demonstrated top end ability in the NFL?

By the same token, if you're looking solely at pass-catching ability, you could argue that the Patriots should have traded for Greg Olsen instead of drafting GRONK.

In any case, it comes down to this: does BB feel that paying Wallace $$$ and giving up a first-round pick to one of the Patriots' prime rivals (from a playoff standpoint) is the best possible use of those assets?

$18M for 5 years for Welker, and a second-rounder to the LOLphins in one of the weakest drafts in recent memory is not the same thing as double that or more plus a first-rounder to a team that does fairly well with mid-to-late first-round picks.

 

[everlong]

Lloyd\Wayne @ 6M + Rookie of your choice with #31 @ 1M > Wallace @ 9-10M.

Or if you prefer Jackson + Rookie of your choice > Wallace for similar money.

 

[Rob0729]

Lloyd\Wayne @ 6M + Rookie of your choice with #31 @ 1M > Wallace @ 9-10M.

Or if you prefer Jackson + Rookie of your choice > Wallace for similar money.

I still think Lloyd is the better way to go if the Pats can use the saved cap money and draft pick to bolster the defense. Lloyd is a short term answer. But if he could excel in McDaniels' system with Kyle Orton and a beat up Sam Bradford, imagine what he could do with Brady.

 

[Deus Irae]

By the same token, if you're looking solely at pass-catching ability, you could argue that the Patriots should have traded for Greg Olsen instead of drafting GRONK.

I could see your point if you were talking Olsen/Hernandez (and we could then look at spending the 4th v. spending a 2nd plus the contract), but not Olsen/Gronk. They're too different stylistically.

In any case, it comes down to this: does BB feel that paying Wallace $$$ and giving up a first-round pick to one of the Patriots' prime rivals (from a playoff standpoint) is the best possible use of those assets?

I don't really see "best" as being the key. "Better" is enough, IMO. The "best" use of the assets is too dependent upon initial POV. There are some people who still insist that a middle-deep receiver isn't a real need for the team, after all.

$18M for 5 years for Welker, and a second-rounder to the LOLphins in one of the weakest drafts in recent memory is not the same thing as double that or more plus a first-rounder to a team that does fairly well with mid-to-late first-round picks.

You can't really care about what the Steelers are going to do with the pick. You've got to worry about your own team, first.

 

[Aßßynormal]

Lloyd\Wayne @ 6M + Rookie of your choice with #31 @ 1M > Wallace @ 9-10M.

Or if you prefer Jackson + Rookie of your choice > Wallace for similar money.

I look at Lloyd as a complimentary receiver (#2) and less of a deep threat.

This is a minimum three year investment, hopefully, Wallace would continue to play past Brady's retirement. I'm not sold on Lloyd still playing well in his mid-thirties (and being even less of a deep threat towards the end), sufficient to match Brady's window of three years and Wayne scares me (after Galloway, Ocho and slowed downed Branch). Wallace could sign a five year deal and still have 'Star' wheels when the contract ends.

If we want a real and legitimate deep threat we're going to have to pay for it.

 

[Ivan]

I've said before that I can understand the arguments on both sides of the Wallace situation, and I can, but the "no" side of the equation has shown a strong tendency to just cry about the pick and/or money without acknowledging what the cost of not getting a receiver has already been and may continue to be.

I haven't seen anyone argue that the Patriots shouldn't address WR this offseason, so just as with the claim that there were many claiming the Patriots had a good defense this is pure fiction. There are plenty who think it makes more sense to go about it another way and not give the pick and big contract to Wallace, but no one is saying they shouldn't address the position. personally i think it should be addressed in both free agency and the draft and I would guess that most here feel the same. There are many free agent WR's who the Patriots can pursue with no cost other than the deal and many feel that's the best approach. Wallace is a desirable player but the cost is too high in relation to the other players available.

Feel free to argue otherwise but as usual there is no need for you to create the strawman.