ESPN: Mike Wright re-signed to 4-year/$7.5M deal

[Deus Irae]

Good value for the money. A field proven sub capable of playing for any DL position in time of need. Removes any panic pressure to draft a DL. And reduces the risk of picking a kid who either can't play or needs a couple seasons to develop.

Now BB can again take the best player available at the draft slot. Better yet, he can use all his picks to move up and target a guy or 2 he really covets. If the draft talent really is that deep, he can just sit and take what options are left.

I want my left tackle!!!!!

 

[DarrylS]

Good signing, good value..

 

[iapatsfan]

If you have watched Patriots games for as long as you can remember, and you think our D is totally void of playmakers, you must be eleven years old. Because you obviously do not remember anything before 2001.

Either that, or you watch games without comprehension except to compare to fantasy football. No stats = worthless player, end of story, eh?

Of all the years a Patriot can could go into the season feeling good about the team, this has to be the best ever, with the possible exception of 2004. Even going into the 2007 season, people were unsure of how Moss would be.

Try imagining yourself a fan of any other team in the NFL and look at what they need to get in the draft compared to what the Patriots need, and see how it feels.

We are friggin's stacked this year.

We went 11-5 last year without Brady on offense or Adalius on defense and Mayo a rookie and about 5 CBs on IR. This year we have Brady back, and have added Springs and Bodden to the secondary. How can anyone feel bad about our chances?

No, I'm not 11 and I have watched Pats games for as long as I can remember. "Frigin Stacked"????? We have nobody, and I mean nobody who can get after the qb on a consistent basis. Adalius has 1 season of double digit sacks in his career, and he will be 32 when the season starts. I do not base my opinion of the Pats players only on stats. In my opinion, Ty Warren is one of the best players on our D, and he is by no means a stat machine. Just does his job very well. I am pleased with the Springs and Bodden signings (especially Bodden - watch Vikings/Lions game #1 from last year - he was everywhere). However, if we do not get some playmakers to pressure the qb, we could have a young Michael Haynes and D. Sanders back there and it will not matter.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

I disagree. $2M is 1.6% of the Pats cap allotment. If you split the Pats cap number equally among 53 guys, each would average taking up $2.4M in cap space, so you could argue he is being paid as a below average player, unless he exceeds expectation and hits his escalators.

So, clearly, the guy is being paid as a backup player. .

NE39 I think you made a strong, reasonable, well-backed argument, but I still disagree that 2M is a reasonable figure for Wright. If 2.4M is the avg divided across 53 players, then I do not think Wright at nearly 2M is worth that price. I believe he plays below-starter level at all 3 D-line positions, does not excel in any one area, and is a major weakness against the run. For a player I just described, I'm thinking 1M/yr is about right. It will be tough to keep our current elite players, making as much as 4-5 times as much as the 2.4M avg you just outlined, if we keep talking ourselves into backups making 2M and thinking that is good value.

 

[iapatsfan]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

NE39 I think you made a strong, reasonable, well-backed argument, but I still disagree that 2M is a reasonable figure for Wright. If 2.4M is the avg divided across 53 players, then I do not think Wright at nearly 2M is worth that price. I believe he plays below-starter level at all 3 D-line positions, does not excel in any one area, and is a major weakness against the run. For a player I just described, I'm thinking 1M/yr is about right. It will be tough to keep our current elite players, making as much as 4-5 times as much as the 2.4M avg you just outlined, if we keep talking ourselves into backups making 2M and thinking that is good value.

Amen.......

 

[patchick]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

If 2.4M is the avg divided across 53 players, then I do not think Wright at nearly 2M is worth that price. I believe he plays below-starter level at all 3 D-line positions, does not excel in any one area, and is a major weakness against the run. For a player I just described, I'm thinking 1M/yr is about right.

OK...but it's not enough to say no to Wright, you have to replace him. Who are your options for that $1M/year? Can you name guys floating around looking for vet-minimum deals who you'd trust to take snaps as a Pats DE? And don't expect to look to the draft for cheap help, since the position is desperately thin this year.

Anything more than the Vet minimum is way too much in my opinion. This guy is absolute garbage.
...
I can't even give this guy the title of JAG. He is well below that.

Could it be that your assessment of Wright is unrealistically skewed because he plays behind a line of absolute studs, all taken at the top of the draft? Look around at other teams with a similar defense and who their 4th and 5th DLs are, and see if Wright really looks like "absolute garbage" in comparison.

 

[iapatsfan]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

OK...but it's not enough to say no to Wright, you have to replace him. Who are your options for that $1M/year? Can you name guys floating around looking for vet-minimum deals who you'd trust to take snaps as a Pats DE? And don't expect to look to the draft for cheap help, since the position is desperately thin this year.



Could it be that your assessment of Wright is unrealistically skewed because he plays behind a line of absolute studs, all taken at the top of the draft? Look around at other teams with a similar defense and who their 4th and 5th DLs are, and see if Wright really looks like "absolute garbage" in comparison.

My assessment is based on him getting absolutely mauled whenever teams run at him, and his inability to get any pressure on the qb. Do you disagree with this assessment?

 

[maverick4]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

OK...but it's not enough to say no to Wright, you have to replace him. Who are your options for that $1M/year? Can you name guys floating around looking for vet-minimum deals who you'd trust to take snaps as a Pats DE? And don't expect to look to the draft for cheap help, since the position is desperately thin this year.

I'm not necessarily against re-signing Wright, but I find it hard to believe that a person of Wright's (below average) talent is a good deal at 2M per year. I haven't looked at the FA list, but I would have to think that at 2M per yr there is a better backup nose tackle or DE than Wright, who never impressed me on any play.
Now that we've re-upped with Wright, I would feel better about it if we re-did Jarvis Green's contract or moved some money or players around.

 

[patchick]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

My assessment is based on him getting absolutely mauled whenever teams run at him, and his inability to get any pressure on the qb. Do you disagree with this assessment?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the assessment is accurate. Then you have to replace him. Who are you putting in his spot who will be a distinct upgrade for $2 million, or who will equal his paltry production for $1 million? That's a necessary part of the argument against this deal, IMO.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the assessment is accurate. Then you have to replace him. Who are you putting in his spot who will be a distinct upgrade for $2 million, or who will equal his paltry production for $1 million? That's a necessary part of the argument against this deal, IMO.

NFL Events: Free Agency

What's done is done, so I'm ready to move on. But from that link it appears there are free agents on this list who I think would have as good if not better than Wright's skill level, and for less money.

 

[iapatsfan]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the assessment is accurate. Then you have to replace him. Who are you putting in his spot who will be a distinct upgrade for $2 million, or who will equal his paltry production for $1 million? That's a necessary part of the argument against this deal, IMO.

I would have liked for them to go after a guy like Marques Douglas. He has proven to be a pretty stronge reserve in a 3-4 D. Contract details have not been released, but considering he's mainly been a reserve for the last couple years, I'm guessing it's pretty reasonable. It will be interesting to see how his contract (for a proven decent player) compares to Wright's (proven bum).

Keep in mind this guy is, at most, 5th on the DL depth chart (possibly 6th if LeKevin Smith jumps him). $2mil/yr seems like an awful lot for that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

NE39 I think you made a strong, reasonable, well-backed argument, but I still disagree that 2M is a reasonable figure for Wright. If 2.4M is the avg divided across 53 players, then I do not think Wright at nearly 2M is worth that price. I believe he plays below-starter level at all 3 D-line positions, does not excel in any one area, and is a major weakness against the run. For a player I just described, I'm thinking 1M/yr is about right. It will be tough to keep our current elite players, making as much as 4-5 times as much as the 2.4M avg you just outlined, if we keep talking ourselves into backups making 2M and thinking that is good value.

I would have liked for them to go after a guy like Marques Douglas. He has proven to be a pretty stronge reserve in a 3-4 D. Contract details have not been released, but considering he's mainly been a reserve for the last couple years, I'm guessing it's pretty reasonable. It will be pretty interesting to see how his contract (for a proven decent player) compares to Wrights (proven bum).

Given that Wright's not a "proven bum", it's pretty clear that your argument is based on a bias as opposed to an objective view.

 

[NE39]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

My assessment is based on him getting absolutely mauled whenever teams run at him, and his inability to get any pressure on the qb. Do you disagree with this assessment?

That is unnecessarily harsh.

I like Wright and thinks he gets a lot out of the ability he has. If you ask me, he plays very physical and is not intimidated. He knows what he is doing and is versatile enough to move around. He contributes on ST, which a lot of DL aren't athletic enough to do. He isn't big enough to anchor against the run like a Seymour or Wilfork, but he is athletic and versatile. He runs very well for a DL, IMO, and there is a role for him at what I consider a reasonable price. Compare him to the other reserve DL on 3-4 teams around the NFL.

Pittsburgh has Chris Hoke, Travis Kirschke and Nick Eason. I would argue he compares favorably with them as players, is younger than Kirschke and Hoke and better than Eason.

San Diego has Ryon Bingham, Jacques Cesaire and recently had Igor Olshansky. I think he compares favorably to all three. Bingham recently re-upped for a similar contract to Wright, Olshansky just signed for much more with Dallas and Cesaire is cheaper but signing a long term deal a few years ago.

Dallas just paid Jason Hatcher and had Tank Johnson. Johnson they had cheaper because of off-field issues, and he lacks the versatility of Wright. Hatcher is working off his rookie deal and is due a big raise soon. They signed Olshansky to replace Canty.

If you ask me, Wright compares favorably to all those guys in different ways when money is factored in. I think he has done a pretty good job as a 5th DL for the Pats, plus provided extra value on ST. He just was out on the market, so he price was set by what other teams were willing to offer (and he had at least a couple interested), and he knows the system well.

 

[iapatsfan]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

Given that Wright's not a "proven bum", it's pretty clear that your argument is based on a bias as opposed to an objective view.

My "proven bum" opinion is based on my objective view of him getting his butt kicked when he is on the field. Nor more, no less.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

My "proven bum" opinion is based on my objective view of him getting his butt kicked when he is on the field. Nor more, no less.

That's clearly not an "objective" view.

 

[iapatsfan]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

That is unnecessarily harsh.

I like Wright and thinks he gets a lot out of the ability he has. If you ask me, he plays very physical and is not intimidated. He knows what he is doing and is versatile enough to move around. He contributes on ST, which a lot of DL aren't athletic enough to do. He isn't big enough to anchor against the run like a Seymour or Wilfork, but he is athletic and versatile. He runs very well for a DL, IMO, and there is a role for him at what I consider a reasonable price. Compare him to the other reserve DL on 3-4 teams around the NFL.

Pittsburgh has Chris Hoke, Travis Kirschke and Nick Eason. I would argue he compares favorably with them as players, is younger than Kirschke and Hoke and better than Eason.

San Diego has Ryon Bingham, Jacques Cesaire and recently had Igor Olshansky. I think he compares favorably to all three. Bingham recently re-upped for a similar contract to Wright, Olshansky just signed for much more with Dallas and Cesaire is cheaper but signing a long term deal a few years ago.

Dallas just paid Jason Hatcher and had Tank Johnson. Johnson they had cheaper because of off-field issues, and he lacks the versatility of Wright. Hatcher is working off his rookie deal and is due a big raise soon. They signed Olshansky to replace Canty.

If you ask me, Wright compares favorably to all those guys in different ways when money is factored in. I think he has done a pretty good job as a 5th DL for the Pats, plus provided extra value on ST. He just was out on the market, so he price was set by what other teams were willing to offer (and he had at least a couple interested), and he knows the system well.

I completely tuned out your argument when you stated he compares favorably to Olshansky. Olshansky is a proven starter in the NFL and was a starter on the Chargers D when they had one of the best run defenses in the NFL. I'll state it again, Wright is a bum. I can't even give him the title of JAG.

 

[NE39]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

I would have liked for them to go after a guy like Marques Douglas. He has proven to be a pretty stronge reserve in a 3-4 D. Contract details have not been released, but considering he's mainly been a reserve for the last couple years, I'm guessing it's pretty reasonable. It will be interesting to see how his contract (for a proven decent player) compares to Wright's (proven bum).

Keep in mind this guy is, at most, 5th on the DL depth chart (possibly 6th if LeKevin Smith jumps him). $2mil/yr seems like an awful lot for that.

Smith is more of a NT, run down backup. He is more stout but less athletic than Wright. I think the both have roles.

Douglas is another rotational guy who doesn't anchor against the run as well (your big criticism of Wright). Not to mention that Douglas is older and a short-term option.

 

[NE39]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

I completely tuned out your argument when you stated he compares favorably to Olshansky. Olshansky is a proven starter in the NFL and was a starter on the Chargers D when they had one of the best run defenses in the NFL. I'll state it again, Wright is a bum. I can't even give him the title of JAG.

First of all, I compared them based on cost/ability. I take both factors into account.

Personally, I never really thought of Olshansky as a starter and thought Dallas wildly overpaid for him. I like him as a rotational guy, a high effort guy who was a solid role player for SD --> but as a full-time starter I'm not that impressed. As far as Dallas is concerned, I don't think he is much of an upgrade over Hatcher.

You don't Wright enough credit for his athletic ability. He really can run for a DL, which is especially notable in his ST contributions.

 

[N.Eman]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-sings

awesome! Im glad they kept DL M. Wright. He's a solid backup player. Its always a good thing to have solid backup players.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Per ESPN: Mike Wright re-signs

You don't Wright enough credit for his athletic ability. He really can run for a DL, which is especially notable in his ST contributions.

I credit you for giving consistent sound arguments and using reason to back up your points. However, when it comes to Mike Wright, saying that he is a strong special teams player and fast for a big fat guy, doesn't really make the argument more persuasive that he is a solid value at 2M. From what I've seen, he is a major liability against the run and is below average across all three DL positions. He may be fast and tries hard, but I don't know if that is enough justification.

I posted that free agency list a few posts ago. How is Wright at 2M a better value over those other players?