PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Welker and Mankins


Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt Light most certainly did not retire a year or two early. He was fighting Crohn's disease his entire career and to continue doing that as you get older and older just gets harder and harder, especially when you're trying to maintain 300+ pounds of weight.
 
@shmessy you can dislike it, but you can't argue with the results. The team couldn't get over the hump when he was "The Guy."


Injured Gronk in SB 46<healthy Gronk in SB49.

But keep making proclamations without context.

P.S. It's obvious I'm arguing against BOTH extremes in this thread - - the rabidly anti-Welkers are just as far off as the rabidly pro-Welkers.

Welker was fantastic for the Patriots when he was here, and the divorce happened at a great time.
 
Still in the post-SB glow, I'm thinking about Wes Welker and Logan Mankins, two guys that should have been on the roster in a more perfect world. I wonder how they took the latest championship, as a personal matter; and whether they have any regrets that they weren't on the team that finally brought the Lombardi home.

NFL is a business, and the players don't really have a lot of degrees of freedom in choosing their employers. Belichick is tougher to stick with than most. He has a history of cutting ties with players he values when their salary gets out of line with what he feels they can provide. Sentimentality doesn't come into play for him. And he doesn't pay for past performance, only for what he expects going forward.

To stay in Foxboro, as your play declines, you have to give money back. Bruschi took a pay cut in his last years. Troy Brown did too. Matt Light did too; and I suspect Light probably retired a year or two earlier than he really had to, once the Pats decided they didn't need him anymore. That's what it costs for core Pats players to actually finish their careers here.

Turns out, the Pats wanted to keep Welker on terms that sounded like a legitimate offer. He chose Denver instead. He could easily have played the role of Danny Amendola on the 2014 roster, if he'd been willing to put up with the likely decline in pay. Instead, he's been buried on the Denver depth chart, taking too many hits to the head, courtesy of Peyton, and seriously contemplating retirement as a result.

Mankins negotiated his contract tough and refused to cut his salary, making him a target for the Tampa trade. If he had given back some of his salary, no question he would have gotten a ring in 2014 instead of exile to the horrific Bucs. He left a serious gap on the line that we're still looking to fix.

Contrast the outcome of the Welker and Mankins contract negotiations with the Vince Wilfork deal. Wilfork is in the last years of his career, too, and he's a pale reflection of the player he was even just two years ago. But, to his credit, he pounded out a reduced contract with upside incentives (that he met and earned). And even as his play declined, the Pats valued his locker room presence enough to keep him around on those terms.

Wilfork will be asked, again, to take a pay cut this offseason. And it's hard to argue that his game hasn't declined. If his pride isn't too bruised by the idea of sinking deeper on the depth chart, and playing for less money, he could have a shot at another ring or two as the elder statesman on the team.

I am disappointed that Welker never got a ring with the Pats. He deserves one. Shockingly, Mankins never got a SB ring either, drafted in 2005. He deserves one too. His soul is still part of the team. If he'd taken a cut (I wonder how much they asked him to take), by now he would have it too.

So, I wonder if either Welker or Mankins regret it. If they had it to do over again, would they be willing to leave a million dollars on the table to stay with the franchise? Two million? Or are they satisfied with how it worked out? After all, a Championship is forever. A little taste of immortality.

Sorry, but Welker doesn't deserve a ring any more than any other player on a team who came up short. It doesn't matter that he was one of the all-time great Pats players.

You need to do what it takes to earn one. In Welker's case, sadly, he almost did enough, but couldn't hold onto a critical, and catchable pass.

It's the same rationale that I hate hearing from analysts when they say "Player X deserves a ring".

No he doesn't. If he did, he'd have one.
 
Last edited:
Do you regret having two million extra dollars in your savings account?
 
I stand by what i said, Welker is no longer in the prime of his career and Mankins was getting too expensive and was starting to slip.The offense is better off without them.

Stand by it all you want but the idea that subtracting really good team players make a team better is idiotic. Had you said you would take Edelman over Welker it would make sense, and if you said that the Mankins trade made sense overall I would agree with that as well, but saying Connolly is better just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. The truth is that they very easily could have won both of those Super Bowls with those players and suggesting they are the reason they didn't is just stupid. They won this season because the GOAT played lights out and they finally had a defense that was championship caliber, not because they don't have and Mankins and Welker.
 
Injured Gronk in SB 46<healthy Gronk in SB49.

But keep making proclamations without context.

P.S. It's obvious I'm arguing against BOTH extremes in this thread - - the rabidly anti-Welkers are just as far off as the rabidly pro-Welkers.

Welker was fantastic for the Patriots when he was here, and the divorce happened at a great time.

Here's a selfie of me being a rabid anti Welker.

page01_03_1517577a.jpg
 
Mankins caught the backlash for holding out years ago. Welker left in free agency. I was born in Fresno and the bulldogs are my favorite college team (where Mankins went to college), but honestly, maybe we won this year because we had a 2nd TE in Wright. We didn't in 2013 and look what happened.

Wright and Amendola deserve SB rings, not Mankins and Welker.
 
Why would anyone even insinuate that a player no longer on a team would get a ring?
 
EIther I'm confused or other posters are confused, but in reading the post I don't think the poster is saying that Welker and Mankins should be given a ring.

I think he is just saying that it would have been nice if they were on the roster because they have made great contributions on the team while they were here and it would have been nice to include their names amongst other champions such as Brady, Ty Law, Tedy Bruschi, Gronk, Edelman, and McCourty.

I think the message is a less controversial one of 'it would be nice if they got a ring while they were here'.


On a side note, I'm not sure pro athletes that choose money over 'championship potential' have as much regret as we might think. I'm sure they are plenty, happy with their fat bank accounts. Of course, sometimes there can be some cruel twists of fate. One such circumstance would be in the NHL when the Penguins and Red Wings squared off in the finals in back to back years. The Red Wings won the first year, the Penguins the second. The ultimately loser was Marian Hossa who switched from the Penguins to the Red Wings to be the only participant to taste defeat both years (or course he later wong with the Blackhawks).
 
Just to be clear about it I am not saying that Welker and Mankins should get rings, the only ones who get them are those who contributed to this championship and neither did so. All I am saying is that the idea that subtracting really good team players makes a team better is foolish.
 
EIther I'm confused or other posters are confused, but in reading the post I don't think the poster is saying that Welker and Mankins should be given a ring.

I think he is just saying that it would have been nice if they were on the roster because they have made great contributions on the team while they were here and it would have been nice to include their names amongst other champions such as Brady, Ty Law, Tedy Bruschi, Gronk, Edelman, and McCourty.

I think the message is a less controversial one of 'it would be nice if they got a ring while they were here'.......

.

I think a lot of posters were reacting to Patman52 in post #9:

"I would not mind at all if Mankins is given a ring. He was there all thru Camp and I know it is a stretch but helped transition the new Oline coach and helped the rookie oline that did make the team."

To which I would say: No.

.
 
Stand by it all you want but the idea that subtracting really good team players make a team better is idiotic. Had you said you would take Edelman over Welker it would make sense, and if you said that the Mankins trade made sense overall I would agree with that as well, but saying Connolly is better just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. The truth is that they very easily could have won both of those Super Bowls with those players and suggesting they are the reason they didn't is just stupid. They won this season because the GOAT played lights out and they finally had a defense that was championship caliber, not because they don't have and Mankins and Welker.

Had they been on the team they would have been a shell of their former self, especially Welker. So the team didn't subtract, they upgraded. A better version of the patriots was created without them. Saying we would have won anyway with declining players is a real stretch.
 
Had they been on the team they would have been a shell of their former self, especially Welker. So the team didn't subtract, they upgraded. A better version of the patriots was created without them. Saying we would have won anyway with declining players is a real stretch.

I am sure he is talking about in primes. Nobody here thinks WW now is better than any starting WR we have. This strawman has to be put to bed already because the discussion keeps going in circles with the same muppets saying the same things.

On Mankins, yeah he probably would have been better than DC out of the gate? Over the long haul? Not sure but the trade seemed to be a good one given the end result and given the protection was pretty solid over the year.

I was one of the few people who was ok with WW leaving. Most of the board was in a uproar.
 
Its not a surprise that the discussion about which players missed out on rings is centered around 2 players who made critical errors with a ring in the balance.
I understand the argument that they are good players, but who knows if they would have messed up in the clutch.
All 6 of our SBs were close enough to be decided by one play. Each of these guys made at least one play, negatively, that probably would have been the difference.
 
I am sure he is talking about in primes. Nobody here thinks WW now is better than any starting WR we have. This strawman has to be put to bed already because the discussion keeps going in circles with the same muppets saying the same things.

On Mankins, yeah he probably would have been better than DC out of the gate? Over the long haul? Not sure but the trade seemed to be a good one given the end result and given the protection was pretty solid over the year.

I was one of the few people who was ok with WW leaving. Most of the board was in a uproar.


IIRC, it was reported that the Pats used some of the picked up cap space from jettisoning Mankins to pick up Branch, Ayers and Casillas.......in addition to getting the TE who caught 6 TDs this year.
 
IIRC, it was reported that the Pats used some of the picked up cap space from jettisoning Mankins to pick up Branch, Ayers and Casillas.......in addition to getting the TE who caught 6 TDs this year.

I think you are right. So calling this trade a steal is underselling it.
 
Had they been on the team they would have been a shell of their former self, especially Welker. So the team didn't subtract, they upgraded. A better version of the patriots was created without them. Saying we would have won anyway with declining players is a real stretch.


Show where I said that? I didn't,. Your argument was that they won because they got rid of them and that's stupid. Amendola was signed to replace Welker and Welker was far more productive the past two seasons and while I agree with the Mankins trade he is still a better player than Connolly and Lovie Smith had high praise for his play in Tampa.
 
IIRC, it was reported that the Pats used some of the picked up cap space from jettisoning Mankins to pick up Branch, Ayers and Casillas.......in addition to getting the TE who caught 6 TDs this year.

I do agree that the cash they gained from the Mankins deal helped them this season.
 
I do agree that the cash they gained from the Mankins deal helped them this season.


.........oh, and did we mention the Patriots are also getting the #1 pick of Day 3???????


.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/19: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Back
Top