Welcome to PatsFans.com

Faulk Should Be Traded

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Brady'sButtBoy, Aug 15, 2006.

  1. Brady'sButtBoy

    Brady'sButtBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Why? Because the addition of a quality LB or WR would benefit this team more than Faulk's continued presence on a offense that has enough depth in the backfield to suffer his loss and yet still be productive.

    Faulk would be coming to a new team with the label of winner and the reputation as a productive change of pace RB, giving him a some pretty decent value as trade bait.

    Our team just isn't deep enough on defense, or at WR, to have the luxury this year of sitting on their hands and keeping Faulk as insurance if Maroney or Dillon go down. Bruschi will be retiring soon, Brady only has so many years in a career, Seymour is at his peak, and Dillon isn't long for being a featured back in the NFL. How many times can you be sure the stars will align again for the Pats? Picture the offense if Maroney and Dillon both stay healthy - Faulk will be a $2.5mil glorified benchwarmer. Of course it is early, but Mills has skills (as Napolean Dynamite might say), and Pass or Evans could fill in when needed as a reciever, maybe even Cobbs would make this team if Faulk was gone. No, they may not be as talented as Faulk, but collectively a couple of them they could fill the void of his leaving well enough when you consider how little Faulk may even be on the field.

    The bottom line is that Faulk's playing time will be reduced significantly, he's a fumbler, he's overpaid for a third string back, and we most likely have the capacity to cover his loss. Wouldn't you rather have a trustworthy linebacker running around beside Tedy slamming everything in sight? Wouldn't a guy like that have a much bigger effect on the success of this team than Faulk will? Or how about a sure handed, tough guy receiver out-muscling DB's for a dozen touchdowns?

    The impact of a quality WR (whether Branch comes in or not) or, even more so, the impact of quality LB, would greatly outweigh Faulk's subtraction from the squad. Sure, it is a bit of a risk trading a contributor like Faulk, but you have to give to get, and Faulk would be worth much more to another team than he is to us today.
  2. Brownfan80

    Brownfan80 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,305
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    I severely disagree. We've already got young, developmental WR and LB that need to learn the system. The RB position is a position of strength. It would be foolhardy to weaken a position of strength to add another question mark at either WR or LB, both positions with plenty of question marks as they stand now.

    The players we have may end up doing a great job, we don't know, they're question marks. But to weaken an area that you already know is strong in order to introduce another player that you are not sure of is just foolish, imo.

    I think Faulk's value actually went up this season. Without needing to be used as Corey's backup, Faulk can now fully settle into his true role of 3rd down back and change of pace/2 minute drill guy. He's done very well in that role, he's just run into trouble when he's had to take snaps from Corey the past two seasons. Now that he doesn't have to do that with Maroney on board, I think Faulk will flourish this season.
  3. Brady'sButtBoy

    Brady'sButtBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    You're missing my point - we don't have time for 'developmental' guys who may never pan out. You get a HOF'er like Brady once in a great while.

    I'm not proposing we trade for "another question mark."

    How exactly is Faulk going to "flourish" when he simply won't be on the field as much?
  4. Gopats!!!

    Gopats!!! Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I believe Faulk is an awesome role player that has played an important part of the Pats success. I think he has the ability to be an integral part of the next couple Patriots teams. I feel like you are underestimating his impact on the team.

    If it were possible to get a WR or LB that can come in and play an important part at their respective positions then I would consider a trade. Other than that, I would keep Faulk.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2006
  5. smg93

    smg93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I wouldn't mind seeing that but I would want to see which LB or WR we'll be getting. I think Maroney can definitely fit the Faulk role this year as at the very least a 3rd down back. We are heavy on RB's this year because of CD's return and Maroney's skills. I'd be interested to see however what type of player we could get for Faulk. While I'd obviously rather trade Pass, I don't think there are too many teams out there who would give anything up for patrick Pass. If we had to trade anyone, Faulk would be a very likely candidate in my opinion.
  6. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    Who,exactly, do we trade to and for what player?

    It's easy to make generalizations like we should trade Faulk, but what team wants the trade, and who will they be willing to trade to us for Faulk.
  7. Clonamery

    Clonamery PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,274
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Great, another Trade Faulk thread.

    Yes, the teams are lining up to trade max talented players for an 8-10 plays a game RB who is over 30 yrs of age and makes $2.5 million.
  8. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,926
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    So, Maroney gets hurt and you've traded Faulk. Now, you're getting blitzed to hell and McDaniels is calling a screen pass.

    So, I guess Cobbs has to be the one to feign a block, and move upfield at the exact right isntant?

    No thanks.

    I doubt Faulk could return us anything of value in a trade anyway. He's getting up there in years, and he's very valuable to the Patriots as is.

    His fumbling has always been the only point of detraction with him.
  9. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    75
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0

    Disable Jersey

    Given our exuberance over Maroney I agree that Faulk might be less valuable. I'd said elsewhere that Cobbs showed that he had potential to be a threat to Faulk's presence in 2007, given his running and catching demonstration last Friday.

    But to trade Faulk requires a willing GM with 2 factors, a need for a 3rd down back and a disposable yet quality LB or WR. I would not trade Fauk this yeark for a 2007 draft pick.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2006
  10. smg93

    smg93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    But what IF we could get an ILB just in case Bruschi got hurt... Oh wait, Tedy is hurt isn't he.

    I will say that I agree that I wouldn't want to trade Faulk just for a 2007 draft pick (unless of course there's a GM out there who was willing to give us a high pick ;) ). I'd really like to plug that ILB hole that I believe we have though but I wouldn't trade Kevin just for the sake of a trade either.
  11. D-cleater

    D-cleater Rookie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    882
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'll actually grant you that Faulk's importance is diminished with the additions of Maroney, Mills, and Cobbs, and other options at KR. Never mind the fact that he is a clutch receiver who our QB depends on in many situations.

    So, what player(s) are you trading for? I'm interested to see what team is going to trade a productive LB or WR that can step right into our system and contribute... for an arguably pricey 3rd down back who excels in our office but tends to fumble at critical times.
  12. RayClay

    RayClay Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    17,518
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Are you trying to say he has no trade value?

    That's what I was going to say.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2006
  13. Bostonian1962

    Bostonian1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,044
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    I agree totally.

    Reasons. As talented as Faulk is, I have always had to hold my breath everytime he touches the ball, because he is a fumbler. Also, he's 31 years old, but still has alot of trade value. In other words, he should get something valuable in return.

    With Cobb, Mills, and Maroney, you have more than enough talent to fill his shoes.

    We have holes elsewhere on the team, that need filling.

    I think it's the perfect time to bust a move on a trade, but like others have said, I'd first have to see what's being offered in return. I don't trade him for the sake of trading him.
  14. MDPATSFAN

    MDPATSFAN Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Agree, trade him for an immediate need....WR, LB...competent DB. I experience a blood pressure spike every time he touches the ball. Pittsburgh feasts on stripping him.
  15. patsox23

    patsox23 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,384
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    This is, with all due respect, a ridiculous idea. First of all, Faulk is more valuable to the Patriots than you seem to realize. Second, he's more valuable to the Patriots than he would be to other teams. Third, he's not a "3rd-string back," that's a simplistic way of looking at it. Fourth, he is, on a play-to-play basis, one of THE most productive players we have. You know who said so? Some guy named Belichick.

    Bottom line: We need him.

    Bottom line, part two: We would get LESS than people think for Faulk because we value him differently/more than most teams would. Most teams would see him as you do, a 3rd string back who can occasionally catch a pass out of the backfield. I'm surprised as good and savvy a Pats fan as you would say so many things like this, but we all have our opinions.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2005
  16. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    That is one of the most foolish things I've heard. Faulk is a clutch guy on 3rd down. We see Maroney one game and he looks good and you're ready to send Faulk out the door. Faulk is a character guy, a locker room guy who knows his role and knows how to win. He is severely undervalued in the passing game. It would be a severe mistake to get rid of him. I'd say Pass is close to being out the door if Cobbs continues to be productive like he was. I'd like to see Cobbs with the first unit on a couple series sometime throughout the preseason. But if he keeps doing well it might be a curser as some team might pick him up when the Pats try to practice squad him much like the colts did last year with corey chapman.
  17. JackBauer

    JackBauer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Well said. People are overrating Cobbs big time right now, IMO. Faulk is an integral, proven part of this offense and isn't going anywhere.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2006
  18. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    To imply that without Faulk we can't run screens is totally numb.

    What happens if Faulk is injured? Our season is down the tubes. I say that if Faulk goies on IR for the season we will be okay. We have Dillon, Graham, Watson, Thomas, Mills if Faulk is gone for hte season. It doesn't matter if he isn't here.

    That said, we can't trade him because no one will want him. This reminds me of the Trade Rohan and trade Pass threads.

    You can trade young OL and DL. Who wants an old RB?
  19. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Don't worry. If he keeps doing well, BB will keep a $250K young guy who is getting better over the 32 year-old guy $2.5 mil guy who is not going to get any better. The Colts can't get him because he'll be on the 53. (And I can't see the Colts signing Faulk after we cut him either).

    Faulk at best has one year left in him. Don't lose young talent to squeeze out that last year.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2005
  20. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    27
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    It's pre-season- we always end up with one or two flavors of the month. Guys who impress fans with there abilities to play well againts the others teams second or third teamers.

    I think I'll hold back my excitement on Cobbs for a while and see if he 1. Makes the 53 man roster & 2. Actually get to play during the regular season.

    He may be the real deal and make the team- then he will stop being the flavor of the month.
  21. Clonamery

    Clonamery PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,274
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

  22. JackBauer

    JackBauer Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    How on earth could you POSSIBLY know this?
  23. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

  24. Brady'sButtBoy

    Brady'sButtBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Thanks for the compliment, it's not often anyone calls me "good and savvy." :)

    To those who insist on Faulk's importance - I think you're over stating his case. Since Dillon arrived in NE, Faulk has averaged 10 touches per games played (rushes and passes caught) for a combined 5yds/touch. Plug 10 touches/game for LoMo (it will likely be more) into the game plan and even if you take five touches away from Dillon and give them to Lomo then the other five have come from Faulk's total. You might argue we will run more this year and that will lead to more touches for everyone (though Faulk's 10 touches/game include 2004 when we ran quite a bit) but it makes more sense to think Maroney will get the addtional touches not Faulk. And what about Mills? Won't he get a few of what would have been Faulk's plays?

    So Faulk's 5 touches per game certainly aren't worth the money he's getting and how big a drop off in total offensive production could occur by plugging just about anyone into such a small hole.

    I started this thread to make the case for Faulk's diminished value to the team and what it is this team needs more than his output. Simply because I haven't come up with a name to trade him for doesn't discount my postulate outright. You have to start by assessing your own players before you go out and make a trade, correct?
  25. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    The same way you could POSSIBLY know he has two or more good years left.

    His value is third down only, speed out of the backfield on screen passes.

    There isn't anything he can do that a younger guy can't.

    Every year people say this guy or that guy or the other guy is NEEDED, we CAN'T do without him. We'll go 0-16 without MILLOY, We can't stop the run without TED WASHINTON.

    Every year player leave. Are you telling me that Faulk is more valuable to this team than David Givens? Adma Vinatieri? WMG?

    We lost them and I don't see BB and SP giving up the season.

    We have some good players, but please stop with all this "We NEED the guy." We don't.
  26. Clonamery

    Clonamery PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,274
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

  27. primetime

    primetime Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,853
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 2 / -3

    Kevin Faulk for Brian Urlacher.

    Fair trade for both sides.

    In all seriousness, he's worth alot more to the Pats than to any other team. He's also one of the best change of pace backs in the league and I expect him to even line up at WR with the lack of depth there once in awhile.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2005
  28. Brady'sButtBoy

    Brady'sButtBoy Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    To appease those who insist upon trade partners to add credibility to my plea to trade Faulk, here are some possibilities, some of them requiring tinkering with draft picks, but not all are of equal desirability, so take it easy...

    Redskins- who have no 3rd down back, for Brandon Lloyd
    Cowboys - for Patrick Crayton or Akin Ayodele
    Eagles - for Greg Lewis, even for Gaffney. Mahe complicates this move
    but Faulk is an upgrade.
    Seahawks - for Niko Koutouvides or Nate Burleson
    Dolphins - longshot obviously, for Hodge or Spragans, whichever one that doesn't end up the starter.
    Chiefs - for Kennsion, assuming Holmes is done
    Texans - for Babin
    Browns - who have too many LB's. They just traded Suggs and might want another Patriot influence. or how about Joe Jurevicius??

    Surely there are other ideas overlooked here. Detroit still has too many WR's but after drafting Clahoun they wouldn't have much interest in Faulk - maybe a three way swap is in order!
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2006
  29. patsox23

    patsox23 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,384
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    If we are, then so is Belichick because I'm pretty much quoting him directly.
  30. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,926
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    So, you want Dillon in there on 3rd down running screens? Watson, Thomas, Mills? Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Faulk is the guy who comes out of the backfield and makes great catches. He's got great hands. We have no othe player at that position who does the things he does.

Share This Page