Getting rid of Mankins = biggest mistake

Nunchucks said:

You just pointed out two plays. Nicely done. How many snaps on offense has there been? Mankins would not have been a problem on the OL....an OL that is right now full of questionmarks.

Click to expand...

I pointed out one play, but both tackles have been mediocre to horrible this year depending on the game. I only pointed to one play to make a point. Look at how bad the tackles were in Miami. That wouldn't change with Mankins.

Yes, Mankins would have helped the o-line. Instead of being monumentally awful, he would have helped to make it really, really awful.

To tell you the truth, if they can't turn around the o-line, it was better to trade Mankins away to get future help because Mankins is not the difference right not to make this team a Super Bowl contender.

Nunchucks said:

Yes, you are adding so much insight to this discussion...a thread titled
"Getting rid of Mankins = biggest mistake"

Are you so shocked that on the 3rd page that I am discussing the trade? Maybe you should look in a different thread if you want to discuss something else?

Perhaps you would like to discuss the value of widgets in a thread titled "Ice cream sundaes and you"

Click to expand...

Umm.....in 2013 mankins allowed the 2nd most sacks of any OG in the nfl.....there certainly is the possibility that it would be this bad with him here

IllegalContact said:

Umm.....in 2013 mankins allowed the 2nd most sacks of any OG in the nfl.....there certainly is the possibility that it would be this bad with him here

Click to expand...

Right, keep telling yourself that Mankins was the weak link on the OL.

Nunchucks said:

Right, keep telling yourself that Mankins was the weak link on the OL.

Click to expand...

Did I say that?

The sacks he gave up are a fact... Keep telling yourself that Mankins would have solved the problem

Nunchucks said:

Right, keep telling yourself that Mankins was the weak link on the OL.

Click to expand...

About as delusional as thinking he would have made a major impact to the o-line as he was here.

I don't think he was saying that Mankins was the weak link. I think he was saying that he isn't the answer for the o-line's problems that people are making him out to be.

Rob0729 said:

About as delusional as thinking he would have made a major impact to the o-line as he was here.

I don't think he was saying that Mankins was the weak link. I think he was saying that he isn't the answer for the o-line's problems that people are making him out to be.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that simply put, mankins is gone......deal with it

IllegalContact said:

Not to mention that simply put, mankins is gone......deal with it

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there will be posters six years from now still complaining about the trade. There are still posters who bring up the Seymour trade. People are still complaining about Welker.

Nunchucks said:

No, people are acting like if Mankins were here, the OL group would have a veteran leader, a guy who set the tone, a guy who could run block, and a guy that provided continuity. One thing is sure, we would not be playing musical chairs with the LG position with Mankins here.

Click to expand...

No they definitely wouldn't be playing musical chairs but Brady would still be taking a beating and the technique and coaching that is being provided would still be sub par. As for vet leadership what about Connolly and Vollmer are they not vets? If Mankins blows out a knee or breaks a leg like Vollmer did last year does the OL go to pot for the balance of the year? Yes Mankins was a vet leader but the balance of the OL isn't all rookies or 1st or 2nd year guys, there are other vets who need to step up. To suggest that he was the only vet who could lead is to deny the facts.

Rob0729 said:

Unfortunately, there will be posters six years from now still complaining about the trade. There are still posters who bring up the Seymour trade. People are still complaining about Welker.

Click to expand...

Although Welker is relevant right now because of the ****tyness of his replacement, it is a big part of the offensive issue.

Trading mankins + no scarneccia = disaster

It's not just mankins, it's also not having dante around. It's too much of a jolt to the offensive line.

patsderoer said:

It's easy to pick this one as the biggest. The offense carried this team in recent years. And this offense looks completely shot right now. Gronk's reaction says it all. Ever seen him like this before?

Click to expand...

If Gronk had done a Gronk spike at that point in the game he would have looked like a complete idiot. Good on him for keeping it low-key when he scored a meaningless TD in garbage time.

BB has traded three major starting players right before the start of the season.
Lawyer Milloy, R Seymour, and Mankins. He got away with cutting Malloy because he had a replacement in Rodney. The Seymour trade didn't work out because he had no one to replace him and the defense suffered that year. He used the pick on Solder, whos a big part of the problem this year. He traded Mankins without having a bonafide replacement, and so far its been pretty ugly. I also think Brady and the team have taken this trade personally, i think it may have really affected the moral of the team. I have to chalk this up to arrogance on the part of BB. Thinking he could replace mankins with an undrafted free agent.

reflexblue said:

BB has traded three major starting players right before the start of the season.
Lawyer Milloy, R Seymour, and Mankins. He got away with cutting Malloy because he had a replacement in Rodney. The Seymour trade didn't work out because he had no one to replace him and the defense suffered that year. He used the pick on Solder, whos a big part of the problem this year. He traded Mankins without having a bonafide replacement, and so far its been pretty ugly. I also think Brady and the team have taken this trade personally, i think it may have really affected the moral of the team. I have to chalk this up to arrogance on the part of BB.

Click to expand...

Right, this team is more like the 2009 team. They could not stop the run all year and the Ravens beat the crap out of them in the playoffs.

Rob0729 said:

About as delusional as thinking he would have made a major impact to the o-line as he was here.

I don't think he was saying that Mankins was the weak link. I think he was saying that he isn't the answer for the o-line's problems that people are making him out to be.

Click to expand...

So, what was gained by trading Mankins? It appears to me that it was just subtraction. Why even bother defending the move? It was an awful decision and it is okay to admit it.

West Philly Patriot said:

Although Welker is relevant right now because of the ****tyness of his replacement, it is a big part of the offensive issue.

Click to expand...

Edelman is welkers replacement

Nunchucks said:

So, what was gained by trading Mankins? It appears to me that it was just subtraction. Why even bother defending the move? It was an awful decision and it is okay to admit it.

Click to expand...

There's no point in defending it just as there is no point in complaining about it

Nunchucks said:

So, what was gained by trading Mankins? It appears to me that it was just subtraction. Why even bother defending the move? It was an awful decision and it is okay to admit it.

Click to expand...

A fourth round pick and a player who is still getting acclimated to the offense. We won't know how this trade really turns out for a few years. As right now, it is a bad trade. Three years from now, the Pats might have gotten a steal.

People are overacting to this right now. What if the Pats draft a solid starter for the next decade with the fourth round pick? What if Mankins is pretty much done? What if when Wright gets acclimated to the offense that he turns into a solid receiver?

As of right now, the Pats would have had the same record with or without Mankins. If the only significant problem on this team was LG, I would say it was a hugely stupid deal. But if the Pats play the rest of the year like they have the first four weeks, they are not sniffing the Super Bowl with or without Mankins.

DarrylS said:

It has been said it is better to get rid of a player a year early rather than a year late... he could have renegotiated.

The Wes Welker myth is perpetuated again, the Pats offered him more money at least twice and he rejected both offers as his agent told him he was worth more, but he was not. The Welker "failure" was not on the Pats, but on his agent.

Click to expand...

Yes, the myth is perpetuated...... by you.

I was for it when it happened,..now not so much

sb1 said:

The Broncos showed the league how to stop Blount. I suspect he's still be here if he had a good game last January in Denver.

Click to expand...

1) I believe Logan Mankins played in that game

2) The League must not gotten the message. Blount so far 2014: 21 carries 157 yards 7.5 average

3) So, if by your logic, one bad game at the end of the season is reason to be shipped out, why did Mankins survive after SB 42 and SB 46?

4) BTW, Blount was easily the Patriots best kickoff returner last year.

2yrs $4million would have kept him here.