The Trade - 8 Games Later

Oswlek said:

Yes, because they've done the same thing with Mankins since 2007. The only difference is now they have a promising TE, a high 4th and a good amount of cap room. Even if the line craps out, they take Tavon Wilson 2.0 and sign Adalius 2.0 with the money it is still a good trade, if only because of the fact that they didn't screw up with their own draft pick or waste the lower amount of cap space they expected to have.

The trade is a home run. Right now. Regardless of what happens from here on out.

Click to expand...

shmessy said:

Yes.

Because they **** the bed LAST year in the playoffs. Even if the OL performs the same as last year in the playoffs, at least they got a good #2 TE, $7 million in additional cap space and a 4th round pick out of it.

Post Edit: I see Oswlek said basically the same response a couple of posts earlier......

Click to expand...

2013: Wendell is the primary weakness in pass protection.
2012: Wendell and Connolly are primary weaknesses in pass protection.
2011: The OL held up well, allowing Brady to set a Super Bowl record for consecutive completions. Mankins plays on torn ACL.
2010: Connolly is the primary weakness in pass protection.
2009: The entire OL doesn't hold up well.
2007: Mankins and Kaczur are the primary weaknesses in pass protection.

Since 2007, I can only fault Mankins for two games and, in those two games, other parts of the OL had trouble as a whole (Neal leaving XLII early). But, again, I've never had a problem with the mankins trade so long as the team could replace him admirably. So, if what we're seeing right now continues through the season and into the playoffs, I'll be all in agreement with you. But if we get into the postseason and Connolly (or whomever is playing LG at the time) is the primary weakness which ultimately leads to the passing game getting crippled, I'm not sure how you could say that it's a great trade. I'm happy that you guys have gone all in on the trade right now. I'm taking the wait and see approach because this trade has played a big part in costing us two games already and, as we've seen before, a weakness disappearing mid-season doesn't necessarily mean it will disappear in the postseason.

KontradictioN said:

this trade has played a big part in costing us two games already and, as we've seen before, a weakness disappearing mid-season doesn't necessarily mean it will disappear in the postseason.

Click to expand...

First of all, hasn't this "Mankins cost us those two games" thing been covered already by some really well respected posters here who have pointed out that it really isnt true and in fact makes no sense. Nor could it be proven. That O-line while bad very well might have not been a result of the Mankins-replacement = X factor.

Second, you mention a "weakness" disappearing? I assume you are talking about an O-line which looked terrible the first couple games and now seems to have found itself. That weakness must have been the loss of Mankins....correct, the downgrade they got at the LG position with his replacement

Well, lets look at this:

1. There was a new O-line coach. Was it possible this was due to that.
2. It was the start of the season, and new players were getting acclimated to playing with each other.
3. Are we sure that Mankins was so great and whomever replaces him is surely worse?
4. Was Mankins really playing that great last year? He was now a year older
5. We had a larger weakness. No move TE, in fact no real second TE. Everyone was complaining about that. The void from having no Joker TE was a much larger weakness than the difference between Mankins and his replacement ASSUMING Mankins was going to play better than the replacement, which so far there is no proof.
6. Less sacks this year than last year with the great Mankins.
7. There are always weaknesses on a team. Not a great starter or not significant backups. Again, the money saved on the Mankins money can be used to fix a "weakness" someplace.
8. The 4th round pick could turn out like Darren Sproles....We dont know that anymore than do we know that the current Pats LG isnt better right now than what Mankins would have given us.

I Cant believe this is even being debated. We had no move TE....now we have a very good one. Clear upgrade. The Oline is NOW playing better than they did last year.

KontradictioN said:

2013: Wendell is the primary weakness in pass protection.
2012: Wendell and Connolly are primary weaknesses in pass protection.
2011: The OL held up well, allowing Brady to set a Super Bowl record for consecutive completions. Mankins plays on torn ACL.
2010: Connolly is the primary weakness in pass protection.
2009: The entire OL doesn't hold up well.
2007: Mankins and Kaczur are the primary weaknesses in pass protection.

Since 2007, I can only fault Mankins for two games and, in those two games, other parts of the OL had trouble as a whole (Neal leaving XLII early). But, again, I've never had a problem with the mankins trade so long as the team could replace him admirably. So, if what we're seeing right now continues through the season and into the playoffs, I'll be all in agreement with you. But if we get into the postseason and Connolly (or whomever is playing LG at the time) is the primary weakness which ultimately leads to the passing game getting crippled, I'm not sure how you could say that it's a great trade. I'm happy that you guys have gone all in on the trade right now. I'm taking the wait and see approach because this trade has played a big part in costing us two games already and, as we've seen before, a weakness disappearing mid-season doesn't necessarily mean it will disappear in the postseason.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it doesn't work this way.

First off, you are constraining things far too much with your "primary" bits. Just because one person was the worst on the line doesn't mean Mankins played well.

More importantly, even if we follow your logic through and we say Wendell craps the bed in the playoffs again... why should I assume Mankins would have made any difference if he didn't last year?

The only possible "wait and see" argument is to say Wendell and Connolly both play well in the playoffs, but an injury to Stork forces the 6th OL into the game and he plays poorly. Only then can a case be made that they missed Mankins. And even in that scenario we'd have to also assume that Wright doesn't provide any offsetting value and that Mankins would have performed better. So many ifs it is borderline absurd to hold on to.

And even then(!) you have to ask if that is the only scenario where the team might miss Logan, why would he ever be worth $10mm of cap space to keep around?

I'm all for being patient and seeing every angle, but the trade of Mankins deserves nothing but applause.

Bruins29 said:

First of all, hasn't this "Mankins cost us those two games" thing been covered already by some really well respected posters here who have pointed out that it really isnt true and in fact makes no sense. Nor could it be proven.

Click to expand...

No. It could easily be proven. You can either look at Dante's comments about a lack of cohesion along the OL after the trade or you can look at them shifting the line-up week in and week out until they found a good one, post-Mankins. Or you could look at the play calling in those weeks where Brady was limited to three step drops and more simple reads to guys that were getting open quickly to limit the hits. Either way, there is plenty of evidence that his absence, and the subsequent play along that unit, played a major role in costing the team those two games.

Second, you mention a "weakness" disappearing? I assume you are talking about an O-line which looked terrible the first couple games and now seems to have found itself. That weakness must have been the loss of Mankins....correct, the downgrade they got at the LG position with his replacement

Click to expand...

We've seen perceived weaknesses that came up earlier in the season proceed to disappear later in the season, only to reppear in the postseason.

Well, lets look at this:

1. There was a new O-line coach. Was it possible this was due to that.

Click to expand...

Doubtul considering how long they were tinkering with the starters until they found something that worked best.

2. It was the start of the season, and new players were getting acclimated to playing with each other.

Click to expand...

Then tinkering with the starters, post-trade, would make zero sense.

3. Are we sure that Mankins was so great and whomever replaces him is surely worse?

Click to expand...

Yes. Maybe not as dominant as he was when he was younger, but still the best OL on the team by far and away.

4. Was Mankins really playing that great last year? He was now a year older

Click to expand...

He was. He was also covering for a lot of weaknesses on that side of the OL last year, including Solder. We had a productive conversation about him in the offseason. Remember?

5. We had a larger weakness. No move TE, in fact no real second TE. Everyone was complaining about that. The void from having no Joker TE was a much larger weakness than the difference between Mankins and his replacement ASSUMING Mankins was going to play better than the replacement, which so far there is no proof.

Click to expand...

Actually, most of the people that were on the same side as you are now on were saying there was no need for a move TE and that the team was clearly trying to go to more 3WR sets to lean on. Look no further than patfanken for that line of reasoning. As for a move TE, the team had other places it could go that didn't include trading Mankins. And this is coming from someone that likes Wright.

6. Less sacks this year than last year with the great Mankins.

Click to expand...

That you're trying to contribute that soley to him is telling.

7. There are always weaknesses on a team. Not a great starter or not significant backups. Again, the money saved on the Mankins money can be used to fix a "weakness" someplace.

Click to expand...

It should be used to sign Revis long-term.

8. The 4th round pick could turn out like Darren Sproles....We dont know that anymore than do we know that the current Pats LG isnt better right now than what Mankins would have given us.

Click to expand...

You should start watching college football too. Again, this is a very top heavy draft and mediocre after that.

Kontra, I get all that but I am still not convinced on a few things. I still think the move TE was sorely needed particularly when the 3 WR set would have been Lafell, who at the time of the MAnkins trade, wasn't looking like the baller he is now. JE who was at least a proven commodity granted with only ONE healthy season under his belt, and then either DA or AD who haven't done ****.

So, while moving to a 3WR was a great alternative to a legit Two TE attack, it has been pretty clear that even with Lafells rise to greatness, they dont have the firepower and Wright clearly is a weapon when you can mismatch him in situations.


Like Oswelk said, the only way to really determine whether this was NOT a good trade is to have several circumstances play out which would be long shots and not really prove much.

At least we have a schedule coming up that will tell us a lot more about the team.

Oswlek said:

Unfortunately it doesn't work this way.
First off, you are constraining things far too much with your "primary" bits. Just because one person was the worst on the line doesn't mean Mankins played well.

Click to expand...

Of course not. But he did. Example- Mankins came in at LT in the Dolphins game last year and that was the best play, both in run blocking and pass protection, that we had all year at that position. Similarly, because others around him play poorly doesn't mean he played poorly either. Your point just got turned upside down on it's head.

More importantly, even if we follow your logic through and we say Wendell craps the bed in the playoffs again... why should I assume Mankins would have made any difference if he didn't last year?

Click to expand...

If the LG gets abused in pass protection and the LG wasn't the issue last year, how could he not make a difference?

The only possible "wait and see" argument is to say Wendell and Connolly both play well in the playoffs, but an injury to Stork forces the 6th OL into the game and he plays poorly. Only then can a case be made that they missed Mankins. And even in that scenario we'd have to also assume that Wright doesn't provide any offsetting value and that Mankins would have performed better. So many ifs it is borderline absurd to hold on to.

Click to expand...

If the unit, and the LG specifically, is kicking ass in the playoffs and they fall off due to injury, I'll note that. Just as I did in my last response to you when discussing the breakdowns along the OL in Super Bowl XLII. But if Wendell/Connolly struggle mightily replacing Mankins without having to take into account injuries elsewhere and it causes the offense to fall apart, how can one say that it's a good trade? Further, if Brady is on his back from pressure up the A-Gap and can't step into his throws, it won't matter if our receiving corps includes Wright, Gronk, Rice in his prime, and Moss in his prime... he won't be able to get the ball to them.

And even then(!) you have to ask if that is the only scenario where the team might miss Logan, why would he ever be worth $10mm of cap space to keep around?

Click to expand...

Because, when you have a pocket passer that is elite when given a pocket, paying the guy that plays guard on his blind side better than most $10M is not a big deal. If you don't believe that, ask Belichick circa 2010.

I'm all for being patient and seeing every angle, but the trade of Mankins deserves nothing but applause.

Click to expand...

Again, it looks good right now because their play improved. The proof is in the pudding, though. The determinant will be whether or not LG play in the postseason is poor and how it affects the rest of the unit.

Bruins29 said:

Kontra, I get all that but I am still not convinced on a few things. I still think the move TE was sorely needed particularly when the 3 WR set would have been Lafell, who at the time of the MAnkins trade, wasn't looking like the baller he is now. JE who was at least a proven commodity granted with only ONE healthy season under his belt, and then either DA or AD who haven't done ****.

So, while moving to a 3WR was a great alternative to a legit Two TE attack, it has been pretty clear that even with Lafells rise to greatness, they dont have the firepower and Wright clearly is a weapon when you can mismatch him in situations.


Like Oswelk said, the only way to really determine whether this was NOT a good trade is to have several circumstances play out which would be long shots and not really prove much.

At least we have a schedule coming up that will tell us a lot more about the team.

Click to expand...

If the team was dead set on Wright as the move TE, there were other trade avenues that could have easily been explored before moving their best OL right before the season started. The main weaknesses were elsewhere on the OL. The Pats pretty much added to that by moving Mankins, especially when they did. The saving grace is that the unit is playing well right now. I hope that continues.

KontradictioN said:

Again, it looks good right now because their play improved. The proof is in the pudding, though. The determinant will be whether or not LG play in the postseason is poor and how it affects the rest of the unit.

Click to expand...

I would agree. It is something to monitor. I dont see it as a problem and there is just a good of a chance that the Right Guard position could be poor.

Also, you also have to take into account the positive TW brings. Remember, assuming LM might have been better its LM factor VS the new LG factor PLUS the TW factor. You cant leave him out.

KontradictioN said:

The saving grace is that the unit is playing well right now. I hope that continues.

Click to expand...

Yes. I think the saving grace is that BB again pulled the trigger on a move which seems to have made the team better, in the short run (assuming status quo) and in the long run.

KontradictioN said:

their best OL

Click to expand...

Not everyone on the forum agrees with that BTW but I see it continually repeated as it was a definitive fact.

KontradictioN said:

Because, when you have a pocket passer that is elite when given a pocket, paying the guy that plays guard on his blind side better than most $10M is not a big deal. If you don't believe that, ask Belichick circa 2010.

Click to expand...

As I've explained numerous times, your logic isn't sound. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

He wasnt playing better than most though. He performance was not commensurate with his pay. When that happens here you either restructure (was not going to happen), take a seat on the bench (too expensive)
you get released (pretty plausible) or get traded if you can find some sucker.

Really, did Tampa really need LM? They suck and quite frankly he sucks. Would he have played better here? Perhaps, but what proof is there?

BB has been running this team the same way since day 1. LM was treated just like every other player before him. The formula seems to be working.

Bruins29 said:

I would agree. It is something to monitor. I dont see it as a problem and there is just a good of a chance that the Right Guard position could be poor.

Also, you also have to take into account the positive TW brings. Remember, assuming LM might have been better its LM factor VS the new LG factor PLUS the TW factor. You cant leave him out.

Click to expand...

I've actually been high on Wright. I like him as a player and think he'll only get better. My question is why it cost Mankins to get him when there were other avenues to explore.

Bruins29 said:

Not everyone on the forum agrees with that BTW but I see it continually repeated as it was a definitive fact.

Click to expand...

I realize that. They're either wrong or are trying to convince themselves.

Oswlek said:

As I've explained numerous times, your logic isn't sound. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely sound. It's just hard to swallow. Either way, I'm fine with just disagreeing. I'm at work and have actualy work to do.

KontradictioN said:

I've actually been high on Wright. I like him as a player and think he'll only get better. My question is why it cost Mankins to get him when there were other avenues to explore.

Click to expand...

First, it diddnt cost Mankins to get him. They got him, a 4th rounder and money to spend elsewhere.

Two possibilities perhaps on your questions?

1. Teams knew the Pats wanted out and were going to cut him. So it was a buyers market and the high cap hit wasnt helping.

2. The other possibility is that maybe, just maybe Mankins wasnt as great as everyone wants to think he was and that is what he was worth.

Last year he "may" or may not have been the best OL we had. Lets for arguments sake say he was. Who cares? This is this year and maybe BB saw a guard slipping even more. Last I heard BB dosent pay money to players for past performance.

KontradictioN said:

2013: Wendell is the primary weakness in pass protection.
2012: Wendell and Connolly are primary weaknesses in pass protection.
2011: The OL held up well, allowing Brady to set a Super Bowl record for consecutive completions. Mankins plays on torn ACL.
2010: Connolly is the primary weakness in pass protection.
2009: The entire OL doesn't hold up well.
2007: Mankins and Kaczur are the primary weaknesses in pass protection.

Since 2007, I can only fault Mankins for two games and, in those two games, other parts of the OL had trouble as a whole (Neal leaving XLII early). But, again, I've never had a problem with the mankins trade so long as the team could replace him admirably. So, if what we're seeing right now continues through the season and into the playoffs, I'll be all in agreement with you. But if we get into the postseason and Connolly (or whomever is playing LG at the time) is the primary weakness which ultimately leads to the passing game getting crippled, I'm not sure how you could say that it's a great trade. I'm happy that you guys have gone all in on the trade right now. I'm taking the wait and see approach because this trade has played a big part in costing us two games already and, as we've seen before, a weakness disappearing mid-season doesn't necessarily mean it will disappear in the postseason.

Click to expand...

Wish I could continue the discussion regarding Mankins, whom I believe is declining. I think the trade was a great one for several reasons. Can't really talk much now. Heading off with the family this afternoon for 5 days at the place I fervently hope Tom Brady goes to the day after this year's Super Bowl!

May be able to intermittently get on here, but if I can't, here's to a great game Sunday!

KontradictioN said:

It's absolutely sound. It's just hard to swallow.

Click to expand...

If you say so...

Edit: What the hell. Even if we ignore Wright and the draft pick and the cap room and all of that, it does not follow that a player who either didn't help the OL issues or actively contributed to them could be viewed as a savior in the event the exact same issues arise again this year. Particularly when the player in question isn't as good as he was back then.

It really is that simple.

Concepts are good. Facts are better.

1. Mankins was not worth his cap hit
2. Mankins isnt playing well
3. O-Line is right now playing better than last year
4. Wright is a solid contributor
5. It is a good thing we dont have to rely on a 3 WR set much
6. Even people who hate the patriots say the trade was a steal for them

TheBostonStraggler said:

That's a judgment call, it isn't the "truth". I see your argument but I disagree. Given this team's need for potent receiving targets, given Wright's rookie numbers coupled with the flashes I have seen with the Patriots, given the Patriots appear to have found a satisfactory combo on the OL (a new one that should get better over a period of games), having another satisfactory receiving target instead of a satisfactory Guard makes us better off.
The question is, of course: Is Wright's rookie year and his flashes here a sign of things to come or is he going to be nothing more than a bit player/flash in the pan?

Click to expand...

I see you guys all disagree and suddenly Mankins sucks but I stick to my point.

There is nothing that says Wright is going to pull a Hernandez going forward, we have had plenty of guys step up and then completely disappear, remember you guys were all on Dobson now he doesn't even play for us. I rather have protection than a guy who Brady might not even throw to in the postseason, as the only guaranteed targets will be Gronk and Edelman, anyone else can easily go ghost at any minute. I learned my lesson about getting excited over a few games, Mankins was a solid guard for years and years and that is a fact. Like I said I am not crying over it, but I am not one of those fans who disses/hypes everyone who leaves/comes.

Dutchmaster617 said:

I see you guys all disagree and suddenly Mankins sucks but I stick to my point.

There is nothing that says Wright is going to pull a Hernandez going forward, we have had plenty of guys step up and then completely disappear, remember you guys were all on Dobson now he doesn't even play for us. I rather have protection than a guy who Brady might not even throw to in the postseason, as the only guaranteed targets will be Gronk and Edelman, anyone else can easily go ghost at any minute. I learned my lesson about getting excited over a few games, Mankins was a solid guard for years and years and that is a fact. Like I said I am not crying over it, but I am not one of those fans who disses/hypes everyone who leaves/comes.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why people believe Mankins sucks. Sure, his play appears to be on the decline it's more a simple case of economic value; Mankins' contract isn't reflective of his current play. The Patriots were well compensated and we move on.

I love the cap space, I love the 4th round pick and I sure as hell love what Tim Wright is going to become for the Patriots.

The player we obtained is younger. That has to count for something.