Contracts to deal with

[FreeTedWilliams]

Right now, until Mayo is declared "healthy" there is really nothing the Pats can do with him, because his contract has something like a 4.5 million dollar injury guarantee. Of course, he could decide to renegotiate on his own, but the Pats wouldn't cut him at this point, because it saves them nothing off the salary cap.

I love Vince, would love to see him stay. Unfortunately his cap hit this year, might be too much for the Pats to carry. I doubt he renegotiates again, more likely he will be cut and hit the open market. Hopefully, he will give the Pats a shot at matching whatever contract offer he gets.

 

[Miguel]

does anyone off hand know how much he earned last year. Looks like he earned most of the NLTBE bonuses. I'm guessing the cap hit wasn't that much lower than he was projected to earn.

He earned $1,050,000 in NLTBE 46-man active roster bonuses. Those hit the 2014 cap immediately. He earned 3 million in NLTBE playing-time incentives. The 3 million will be part of the year-end reconciliation. Project the Patriots to be debited $4,562,500 for reached NLTBE incentives.

 

[Miguel]

The Patriots are being commended for allowing Wilfork to play in 64.4% of the snaps in Week 17. There were 6 games before Week 17 in which he did not play 70% of the snaps. Should the Pats be commended for them also?

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots are being commended for allowing Wilfork to play in 64.4% of the snaps in Week 17. There were 6 games before Week 17 in which he did not play 70% of the snaps. Should the Pats be commended for them also?

This place is already in full off season mode. The crazy's just going to get worse and worse. Just wait until the end of April.

 

[shmessy]

The logic of pointing to one man for a team failure, as if that's the only type of play that player was in for...?

hwc was not doing that.

He stated that the Pats would probably be among the worst teams at stopping the short run situation whether or not they pay Wilfork $9 million.

He didn't blame Wilfork at all, in fact he laid it mainly on the nickel and dime scheming.

It was a perfectly clear post.

 

[shmessy]

The Patriots are being commended for allowing Wilfork to play in 64.4% of the snaps in Week 17. There were 6 games before Week 17 in which he did not play 70% of the snaps. Should the Pats be commended for them also?

What???

Miguel, they played to win those pre-week 17 games....and as hwc pointed out, the defensive scheme last year was majority nickel and dime.

The meaningless exhibition against the Bills? They got him in for one reason and one reason only. It's a good thing he did not get hurt in that game. They did not need to win that day, so they did him a solid.

If anything, that proves that they wanted to get him his money. It would have been far easier and wiser for the playoffs to not play him more than usual in a meaningless game.

Is that hard to understand?

 

[juny]

They played to win those pre-week 17 games....and as hwc pointed out, the defensive scheme last year was majority nickel and dime.

The meaningless exhibition against the Bills? They got him in for one reason and one reason only. It's a good thing he did not get hurt in that game.

If anything, that proves that they wanted to get him his money. It would have been far easier and wiser for the playoffs to not play him more than usual in a meaningless game.

Is that hard to understand?

Or they could have just adjusted the % snaps played incentive like they did with Solder (if it was possible to do such a thing that late in the season), and rested the big guy for a meaningless game.

EDIT: oops it was Vollmer not Solder, where the team made it easier to hit the playing time incentive.

 

[Deus Irae]

hwc was not doing that.

He stated that the Pats would probably be among the worst teams at stopping the short run situation whether or not they pay Wilfork $9 million.

He didn't blame Wilfork at all, in fact he laid it mainly on the nickel and dime scheming.

It was a perfectly clear post.

He pointed to one function of the defense (short run situation), and was focusing on the impact of one player on an area of team failure.

So, he did what I said he was doing. As you said, it was a perfectly clear post.

 

[Miguel]

Is that hard to understand?

Never mind.

 

[shmessy]

He pointed to one function of the defense (short run situation), and was focusing on the impact of one player on an area of team failure.

So, he did what I said he was doing. As you said, it was a perfectly clear post.

It WAS a perfectly clear post.

You misinterpreted hwc's "trade-off for better pass coverage is conceding more running plays and inviting teams to run against them" as an "area of team failure".

He never used the word "failure". He did point out that the Patriots put a greater premium on guarding against the pass by leaning so heavily on nickel and dime schemes.

I love Vince as a Pat as much as the next fan, but do not want the team paying $9 million for him at this stage in his career. It's like the 'let Brady play as long as he wants for his legacy' argument. tough choices are going to have to be made if the team is to continue winning.

In my opinion, and it is only that - an opinion, a just turned 29 year old Mayo has more upside for the defense than a 33 year old Wilfork for then next several years.

It's not unlike the Welker-Edelman situation. We hate to see old friends go, but the team needs to position for the future.

That being said, I hope Vince, Mayo, etc and the team can agree on reasonable terms - - that's the optimal.

Vereen, however, I am not as optimistic about.

 

[Deus Irae]

It WAS a perfectly clear post.

You misinterpreted hwc's "trade-off for better pass coverage is conceding more running plays and inviting teams to run against them" as an "area of team failure".

He never used the word "failure". He did point out that the Patriots put a greater premium on guarding against the pass by leaning so heavily on nickel and dime schemes.

I didn't misunderstand anything, as is obvious if one bothers to actually read his post:

Nevertheless, the Pats could probably be the worst team in the NFL stopping short-yardage running plays without paying Wilfork $9 million or without Wilfork, period.

Now, run along and try starting a fight with someone else.

 

[hwc]

Obviously, the main reason to pay a 400 lb nose tackle is to clog the middle on running plays. On 3rd and 25 dime packages, you would probably rather have a lighter/quicker pass rusher on the field.

I don't think it's disparaging Wilfork in any way to suggest that the time is now for the Pats to look for a young run stuffing force at nose tackle. If it's not this year, it's next. Big picture, it's probably a perfect time for Vince to go out on top and announce his retirement.

His playtime has to decline further in NE, which means that his pay has to decline commensurate with a reduced role. Or, he has to go through all of the baggage of getting cut and hanging on for one last year with some other (probably bad) team (see Mankins, Logan).

I respect his decision either way, but I don't really see how the Pats have a lot of options -- in part because their whole approach to defense has changed to meet the demands of the pass-happy NFL. Belichick wasn't playing 75% nickle when he invested a high draft pick and major contracts in a monster nose tackle. It's a different game and Belichick is clearly changing his defensive priorities. For example, we see Jamie Collins drafted instead of a Ted Johnson LB. We see man coverage corners. Etc.

 

[Ivan]

The Patriots are being commended for allowing Wilfork to play in 64.4% of the snaps in Week 17. There were 6 games before Week 17 in which he did not play 70% of the snaps. Should the Pats be commended for themalso?

The rest of the season the Patriots were playing to win, in week 17 they clearly were not, so in week 17 they were simply making sure he reached an incentive they felt he had earned. Do you think they should have kept him from attaining it? Belichick obviously felt that Wilfork was an important player for them this season, that's why he played so much despite their being in sub packages for most of the season.

 

[hwc]

I do think that the Pats will be evaluating the poor performance on short yardage running downs that Football Outsiders noted. Even with a pass defense emphasis, never being able to stop a 3rd and short run play has to be a concern. Of course, having your MLB on injured reserve is a part of that, but they also have to evaluate the play of individual players in those packages and that would include 33 year old Wilfork.

All things being equal, I susspect they would want the 400 lb NT position on the team to be a situational player with far less than a full time role.

 

[Deus Irae]

Obviously, the main reason to pay a 400 lb nose tackle is to clog the middle on running plays. On 3rd and 25 dime packages, you would probably rather have a lighter/quicker pass rusher on the field.

I don't think it's disparaging Wilfork in any way to suggest that the time is now for the Pats to look for a young run stuffing force at nose tackle. If it's not this year, it's next. Big picture, it's probably a perfect time for Vince to go out on top and announce his retirement.

My question was with the logic. "The team already sucks at it, so.... " Instead of ditching the guy who can actually get it done (assuming they still think Wilfork can still get it done), it would make more sense to bring in other players who can also get it done.

As for the team looking for another moose in the middle, I"m with you 100%. I was the leader of the "Please let Poe drop enough that the Patriots can get him" bandwagon a few years ago, and I was on the "Draft McCullers" bandwagon last year.

 

[Miguel]

The rest of the season the Patriots were playing to win, in week 17 they clearly were not, so in week 17 they were simply making sure he reached an incentive they felt he had earned. Do you think they should have kept him from attaining it?

No. Just happen to think that there is a possibility that Wilfork's camp could respond to "We took care of you in Week 17" with "you would not have needed to if you did not give so many snaps before Week 17 to lesser players like Casey Walker, Alan Branch or Chris Jones

 

[hwc]

"Lesser players" is an evaluation that has to be made by the coaching staff, not a player's agent! It's amazing that Wilfork was able to bounce back from the achilles tear and play in 19 games this year. Just amazing.

Having said that, none of us know how the Pats graded his performance.

 

[Miguel]

"Lesser players" is an evaluation that has to be made by the coaching staff, not a player's agent! It's amazing that Wilfork was able to bounce back from the achilles tear and play in 19 games this year. Just amazing.

Having said that, none of us know how the Pats graded his performance.

Playing-time is usually a good indicator.

 

[shmessy]

No. Just happen to think that there is a possibility that Wilfork's camp could respond to "We took care of you in Week 17" with "you would not have needed to if you did not give so many snaps before Week 17 to lesser players like Casey Walker, Alan Branch or Chris Jones

What does it matter HOW he got there? The Patriots made sure he did get there by playing him more than he had been playing before in a meaningless game at the end, going against the team interest by risking him for the playoffs. That can only be interpreted as a sentimental act - -because it sure wasn't a cold, calculating one.

I was at that last game - - my son forced me to buy tickets for the meaningless exhibition. I can attest that Belichick had mainly the scrubs in there for the second half - - it was the Garropolo and Tyms show that day. What other reason than the NLTBE would Belichick have had to play Wilfork MORE than he had for the previous 6 weeks?

In 2014, they were managing the health of a 375 pound man who was coming back from a torn achilles heel. A man THAT big on an injured achilles? Many people here and elsewhere opined that he would not be able to come back last year.

Once again, the only thing that does NOT make pure business sense is why did they have to play him at a higher rate than the previous 6 weeks in the meaningless Buffalo game.

Maybe there is another reason other than pure sentiment, but I don't know of it.

 

[Miguel]

What does it matter HOW he got there? The Patriots made sure he did get there by playing him more than he had been playing before in a meaningless game at the end, going against the team interest by risking him for the playoffs. That can only be interpreted as a sentimental act - -because it sure wasn't a cold, calculating one.

In 2014, they were managing the health of a 375 pound man who was coming back from a torn achilles heel. A man THAT big on an injured achilles? Many people here and elsewhere opined that he would not be able to come back last year.

Once again, the only thing that does NOT make pure business sense is why did they have to play him at a higher rate than the previous 6 weeks in the meaningless Buffalo game.

Maybe there is another reason other than pure sentiment, but I don't know of it.

Week Snaps Totals Percentage
Week1 50 74 67.6%
Week2 37 66 56.1%
Week3 48 58 82.8%
Week4 55 67 82.1%
Week5 47 52 90.4%
Week6 64 69 92.8%
Week7 69 87 79.3%
Week8 43 69 62.3%
Week9 61 80 76.3%
Week10
Week11 35 57 61.4%
Week12 62 80 77.5%
Week13 61 73 83.6%
Week14 32 57 56.1%
Week15 44 78 56.4%
Week16 56 63 88.9%
Week17 38 59 64.4%

The Patriots did not play Wilfork at at higher rate than the previous 6 weeks.

What does it matter how he got to the 70%? Please ask those who think that Wilfork should take into account the Patriots allowing him to play Week 17 in his negotiations.