Paddy Chung unhappy (possibly fit?)

[supafly]

I would go after Deshon Goldson,Will Moore or Jairus Byrd to fill Chung's role next year.

The only thing that makes me somewhat leery of Goldson is the fact that they passed on him already, and that was before he demanded top dollar at the position. I don't know if there is an actual chance of Goldson coming here, but that would be a welcome sign.

All of the above players would be a welcome sign, although we don't know how much Belichick will want to spend on the position, or if he'd rather address it via the draft.

One way or another it will be addressed, and one would assume that it will be more aggressive than in the past.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

don't let the door hit you on the way out kid

 

[supafly]

Why? You are just guessing at that with no basis.


Are you saying you can tell the difference?



What are you basing this on? None of this was true when he was last healthy, so what leads you to believe his role has changed while he was injured?
When he is healthy then the questions will be answered. Creating a conspiracy theory over a deleted tweet is the kind of stuff that belongs in the National Enquirer.

As a whole, I would certainly agree that as fans we should NOT come to conclusions based purely on speculation, so you are correct there for sure.

I am just wondering if the fact that he hasn't done too hot in coverage + the fact that he went out of his way to quickly remove the message/tweet won't lead to some truth?

Only time will tell though, and it will be something to keep an eye on.

I think that Chung still has some nice strengths, and that they could use them to their advantage as a team aspect in the secondary, but I also think those stengths are geared more towards his run stopping ability, or even his ability to potentially cover a TE better in more up the middle routes. We could also see some of the infamous big nickle usage too. I would imagine that he will certainly have his opportunities still, but I am questioning if that will still be in a traditional full-time role where he is prone to lapses in coverage.

 

[mgteich]

The question for Thursday night is not about a full-time role. It is whether he adds more than Ebner or Rivera.

As a whole, I would certainly agree that as fans we should NOT come to conclusions based purely on speculation, so you are correct there for sure.

I am just wondering if the fact that he hasn't done too hot in coverage + the fact that he went out of his way to quickly remove the message/tweet won't lead to some truth?

Only time will tell though, and it will be something to keep an eye on.

I think that Chung still has some nice strengths, and that they could use them to their advantage as a team aspect in the secondary, but I also think those stengths are geared more towards his run stopping ability, or even his ability to potentially cover a TE better in more up the middle routes. We could also see some of the infamous big nickle usage too. I would imagine that he will certainly have his opportunities still, but I am questioning if that will still be in a traditional full-time role where he is prone to lapses in coverage.

 

[supafly]

The question for Thursday night is not about a full-time role. It is whether he adds more than Ebner or Rivera.

Was that necessarily the case on Sunday?

 

[BelichickFan]

He doesn't seem to fit with this defense. I'd like to see us draft a safety who can play in man coverage and use the savings from not re-signing him to keep Vollmer around for a long time.

Big $$$ extension for Chung isn't happening regardless of the tweet.

We need to make sure we get Vollmer done and also Donald Thomas who is a FA after this year.

Thankfully the TE are and Mayo are done but we also need to be thinking about Solder, Spikes and McCourty in the not too distant future. Spikes only has one more year, Solder and McCourty have two.

 

[Ring 6]

Sometimes the writing on the wall can lead to actual truth, Andy.

As you say, sometimes it is just pure speculation.

Right which means it has no value.

The secondary has improved in Chung's absence.

Has it? Its been inconsistent with and without him.

He is much better as an "in the box" safety, and he has proven that he pretty much sucks in coverage.

Actually, I disagree. He has been victimized less than Gregory and Wilson, but people focus on Chung because they have higher expectations. Just my viewpoint.

That is not a thought that is news to anyone, as the high majority of media members and posters here all feel the same way. Chung is a liability in coverage.

see above

If he didn't have anything to necessarily hide as you are inferring (you are also making an assumption too, just like me) then why would he quickly remove it? Why would anyone do that? Why wouldn't you just leave it alone?

How can you possibly discuss why someone would make comment that isn't even clear what it means, then remove it? It is totally silly to even attempt to discuss it.

While I agree with you that there is speculation involved, the fact remains that he added some curiosity to the equation by quickly going out of his way to remove it.

It is all meaningless

Sometimes 1 + 1 really does equal 2. Sometimes the smoke proves to lead to the fire.

No one knows what it meant, why it was written, why it was removed.
You are creating 3 guesses to those and saying sometimes wild guesses are right. Why bother?

As you have pointed out, sometimes not. Only time will tell if Chung immediately jumps back to a full-time role or he sees his reps lessened a bit due to specific gameplanning, as that is what I am inferring.

Twitter has nothing to do with that, therefore nothing has changed that we could possibly know since he was healthy.

One way or another, I would expect to see him Thursday night vs the Jets, but we'll have to see.

Well, it depends if he is healthy or not.
I could easily see the logic of him thinking he is ready to go and the coaching staff thinking its a tough call, so playing 2 games in 5 days wouldn't be wise for a guy who may or may not be 100% and has't played or practiced fully in a while.
Time will tell.

 

[supafly]

Big $$$ extension for Chung isn't happening regardless of the tweet.

We need to make sure we get Vollmer done and also Donald Thomas who is a FA after this year.

Thankfully the TE are and Mayo are done but we also need to be thinking about Solder, Spikes and McCourty in the not too distant future. Spikes only has one more year, Solder and McCourty have two.

I was actually wondering earlier in the season if the team would still be interested in Chung's services on any level, based on the fact that the money will certainly be a lot less than what many had assumed?

Or is it simply a black and white issue where he'd be a full time starter here or let free to walk?

In other words, is there any use for him in more of a bit role, with the capacity to start if/when needed like something in the Sanders type role?

Many had initially guessed not, but I am starting to wonder how much another team would be willing to pay him as their starter at this point? If the Patriots were okay at some point giving Sanders approx. 3 million a year for his role, then would they be willing to do the same with Chung for maybe a million more at approx. 4 million a year? Or is that too high?

Of course the assumption is there that the team would still be interested in his services for the role I am mentioning, which may not be the case.

 

[Ring 6]

The question for Thursday night is not about a full-time role. It is whether he adds more than Ebner or Rivera.

What do you base this on? When he was last healthy he was the #1 Safety.
Please explain how Gregory has surpassed him by playing poorly. Please explain how Wilson has surpassed him by sitting behind Gregory.

Please explain what has changed about Chung while injured that leads you to believe he went from starter to not even worthy of #4 Safety.

 

[Marqui]

The secondary has improved in Chung's absence.

I'm not sure if that's true. The secondary was as bad as ever in the Jets and last Bills game.

 

[Deus Irae]

What do you base this on? When he was last healthy he was the #1 Safety.
Please explain how Gregory has surpassed him by playing poorly. Please explain how Wilson has surpassed him by sitting behind Gregory.

Please explain what has changed about Chung while injured that leads you to believe he went from starter to not even worthy of #4 Safety.

I'm just curious about something here. You do realize that Chung was playing lousy when he was playing, right?

 

[Ring 6]

I'm just curious about something here. You do realize that Chung was playing lousy when he was playing, right?

Compared to Gregory, Wilson, and Ebner, not so much.

 

[supafly]

I'm not sure if that's true. The secondary was as bad as ever in the Jets and last Bills game.

Certainly a fair point, and the comment will be open to much debate.

I was basing it more off of the latest game where Talib played though, so that is my error in not stating myself properly. I was also thinking more towards the move of McCourty to safety, which happened after Chung was injured. I personally think that McCourty is a nice addition to the safety corps, and that he solves some of the secondary problems. Then again, I have been biased in feeling that a lot of the secondary problems were due to disgusting play of the safeties--and that included Chung's coverage ability.

I realize that some will have differing opinions on Chung's coverage ability, but my personal opinion is that he is not very good. I couldn't imagine much of an improvement in the pass defense with Pat Chung in there myself, but everyone will feel differently. It's a good point that Gregory is not much better, and that he lacks in certain other areas where Chung is better.

 

[Deus Irae]

Compared to Gregory, Wilson, and Ebner, not so much.

I didn't ask you to compare him to anyone. I asked if you realized that he was playing lousy when he was playing.

 

[Ring 6]

I didn't ask you to compare him to anyone. I asked if you realized that he was playing lousy when he was playing.

You asked that in response to my comment about what has happened to suggest he was now behind those players as the poster I was responding to stated.

 

[Deus Irae]

You asked that in response to my comment about what has happened to suggest he was now behind those players as the poster I was responding to stated.

I asked a specific question, noting my curiousity was specifically about the question. You've chosen not to answer it, and instead taken the opportunity to knock the other safeties in comparison, and you followed that up with another non-answer. That's telling enough that an answer isn't really needed at this point.

 

[Ring 6]

I asked a specific question, noting my curiousity was specifically about the question. You've chosen not to answer it, and instead taken the opportunity to knock the other safeties in comparison, and you followed that up with another non-answer. That's telling enough that an answer isn't really needed at this point.

Well you were the one who inserted yourself into the discussion, so it is appropriate that you set the terms for exiting it.

 

[smg93]

Andy, the problem is you asked why anyone should assume there's a problem with Chung because of a tweet which he subsequently deleted.

On the other side of that equation is why you assume that things are just fine with Chung and that a tweet like that should be dismissed.

 

[RayClay]

I have no information to base this on, but i just have a strong feeling his shoulder hasn't been 100%. His strength is certainly not coverage, it's playing in the box and hitting. If he can't fly into players with his shoulder, he's instantly mediocre and that's my theory, for what it's worth.

 

[Shed83]

What I love about Patsfans is stuff like learning "Paddy" Chung is really a Mick. Never knew that.

I live in the west coast of Scotland - half the population are Micks!!

Where i come from Paddy is just short for Patrick - we call every person named Patrick 'Paddy' whether they are irish or not.

Im assuming thats not the case in Boston!

(although i should say we call the Irish 'Paddy's' rather than Micks - its all a little confusing!!)