ESPN rumor/speculation about Greg Olsen to potentially New England

[Feep50]

As of right now, there isn't a trade offer on the table. It's only a rumor. However, if the Bears are looking to trade Olsen they will probably start out high (a low first rounder to jump back into the draft). I can't see any team paying that, though, which means that they'll probably get a second out of him. I would happily give up one of our seconds for him if that were the case. We'd probably have to throw in a day two pick as well.

Well, most people, yourself included I believe, are projecting taking a TE with one of our 3 second round picks. I would be inclined to agree to trading one of those picks for a proven commodity like Olson. If BB goes TE with #22 I assume most posters here will implode or spontaneously combust. (sp)?

Anyhow, I like the idea of Olson coming to the Pats, if it happens.......

 

[Kontradiction]

I'd rather use the pick to be wasted on olsen on a TE like gronkowski or jimmy graham

How exactly would a second round pick used on Olsen be a "waste" when he's a proven product at the position in this league and Graham is not?

 

[HarkDawg]

recieving TE's are a new breed of today. In the past TE were all about blocking.

Now it seems.... to be stud you must be able to catch the ball.


I value both Catching and Blocking....



Now a days catching > blocking

Offenses throw> run


An evolving game in so many ways

 

[MoLewisrocks]

No, he is still operating under his rookie deal.

Per Rotoworld:

7/3/2007: Signed a five-year, $7.769 million contract. The deal contains $4.9 million guaranteed, including a $250,000 signing bonus and a $3.545 million option bonus in the second year. Another $2.921 million is available through incentives. 2009: $460,000 (+ $100,000 reporting bonus), 2010: $550,000 (+ $140,000 reporting bonus), 2011: $650,000 (+ $125,732 reporting bonus), 2012: Free Agent. Cap charge: $1,501,450 (2009).


Though the Pats have a good relationship and have made trades with Chicago before, I question the fit. Olsen isn't a strong blocker, and the Pats seem to demand that from their TE. With all the spread sets they run, the Pats seem to feature WR over the TE position.

If Martz is getting rid of him it's for the same reason he wouldn't fit here, blocking. Martz said a week or so ago that if a TE can't block you might as well replace him with a WR.

 

[Rob0729]

If Martz is getting rid of him it's for the same reason he wouldn't fit here, blocking. Martz said a week or so ago that if a TE can't block you might as well replace him with a WR.

The Pats have used receiving TEs in the past. Martz uses them near exclusively as blockers. That is the difference. Olsen would be a waste in Martz's offense since his strengths are in receiving. He could be used here. Watson was never the best blocker although his skills improved over the years.

 

[Kontradiction]

Well, most people, yourself included I believe, are projecting taking a TE with one of our 3 second round picks. I would be inclined to agree to trading one of those picks for a proven commodity like Olson. If BB goes TE with #22 I assume most posters here will implode or spontaneously combust. (sp)?

Anyhow, I like the idea of Olson coming to the Pats, if it happens.......

Nah. My needs list looked something like this...

1. OL
2. DE
3. OLB
4. WR

You could switch OLB and WR around and end up just fine. I did, and still do, think that TE is a need in this offense. That said, I wouldn't be against bringing Watson back either, if the money is right.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

How exactly would a second round pick used on Olsen be a "waste" when he's a proven product at the position in this league and Graham is not?

well....you would not use a 2nd rounder on graham......you would probably use a 3rd or 4th rounder

going after olsen would be a waste of a draft pick since you could simply sign ben watson and get the same quality

 

[HarkDawg]

Our Slot WR's make it difficult for TE's to operate because they run similar routes and the slot WR gets the ball more often than the TE's do. Our system does not use TE's to their full capabilities. That is why we lost Mr. T to the Saints.



He was a good TE..... In our system TE's cannot and will not flourish b/c ball favoritism is all about our receiving core.

-We do not spread the wealth as much as we should.-


The Saints were the antithesis of the Patriots in terms of sharing the wealth.


we do not have an O coordinator and we r too predictable. :bricks::bricks:

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Pats have used receiving TEs in the past. Martz uses them near exclusively as blockers. That is the difference. Olsen would be a waste in Martz's offense since his strengths are in receiving. He could be used here. Watson was never the best blocker although his skills improved over the years.

Longing for the days of menacing blockers like Rod Rutledge....

 

[HarkDawg]

"Hark!" the herald angel sings...

Daniel Graham was a great blocking TE here, but he was by no means a "stud". Tony Gonzalez and Jason Witten are, by definition, "studs". On a side note, I've always had a feeling that you were into studs, Hark.

I do like my Studs as much as you like your Duds


cough cough Phony Maroney



class blah

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

How do you know Gresham would be better? Or that Olsen would cost a 2nd (in which case I'd agree with you, is too high a cost IMO considering our other needs). But I wasn't necessarily saying I wouldn't want Olsen for the right price

 

[patriotscpfc]

I think Gresham is building up to being a bust. Don't know why, but don't really like any of the TE's this year.

Olsen wouldn't be a bad trade for us.

If we use him properly, he would be a bargain for a 2nd.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Olsen's weakness is in the blocking game. That's a red flag for a Pats TE. I'd rather have a Zach Miller who is strong in both aspects of the game if I'm going to part with an early draft pick. Now if Olsen is available for a 4th, then this trade becomes a lot more appetizing.

 

[Warren94]

rather draft Moeaki from Iowa on day 2.

 

[pats1]

rather draft Moeaki from Iowa on day 2.

Can you specify what day that actually is? Day 2 now means many different things.

 

[Deus Irae]

Olsen's a receiving tight end who's a weak blocker. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by giving up a 2nd round pick for him when he doesn't fit the team's tight end mold. In looking at it quickly, bringing him in would seem to either signify a major shift in the focus of the team's passing game, or to be a signal that Welker isn't really expected to be of much help in 2010.

 

[Warren94]

Can you specify what day that actually is? Day 2 now means many different things.

very true Round 3 or after.

 

[Kontradiction]

Olsen's a receiving tight end who's a weak blocker. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by giving up a 2nd round pick for him when he doesn't fit the team's tight end mold. In looking at it quickly, bringing him in would seem to either signify a major shift in the focus of the team's passing game, or to be a signal that Welker isn't really expected to be of much help in 2010.

We have bingo.

 

[signbabybrady]

How do you know Gresham would be better? Or that Olsen would cost a 2nd (in which case I'd agree with you, is too high a cost IMO considering our other needs). But I wasn't necessarily saying I wouldn't want Olsen for the right price

I don't want either of the top two TEs as they both have injury history and I believe both are coming out as juniors which means there is a small sample size.

Since we don't have a three I think we would have to include one of our twos as I think a 4 would not be close to enough. Maybe we get a 5th or something in return but I doubt it. A 2 for Olsen would seem about right.

I think this would be an improvement over Watson but I think I would perfer Watson and a 2 over just Olsen. That said I think Watson wants out so we don't have that choice meaning I am OK with a 2 for Olsen.

In the end I would rather our top four picks go to either RB, OL, DL, or LB maybe a WR though I would perfer a vet (perferably not at the end like galloway).

 

[Kontradiction]

well....you would not use a 2nd rounder on graham......you would probably use a 3rd or 4th rounder

going after olsen would be a waste of a draft pick since you could simply sign ben watson and get the same quality

I wouldn't be opposed to re-signing Watson at all, but Olsen is a better receiving tight end. Not sure what you're getting at when you used the word "quality".