- Joined
- May 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,274
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I think the Mankins situation will work out just fine.
Good to hear. Happy to see him back in the fold. Now they need to give him a long term deal.
Good to hear. Happy to see him back in the fold. Now they need to give him a long term deal.
Not surprising. He had signed a waiver and was working out with the team sans tender I believe.
If Mankins decides to hold out until the June deadline, it will not be an encouraging sign. In fact if they don't have some indication from him that he's sufficiently voiced his displeasure before the draft, don't be surprised if Pouncy doesn't become the safe pick in the first if they can't trade down incrementally if not out of it for a package of second and third and fourth rounders.
In the Belichick era, the team has shelled out long-term deals at every position on the field- except guard and fullback. It may be coincidence or an organizational philosophy regarding the value of the position.
Spidey sense tells me that this situation gets worse as each side does not agree on the value of the position and Mankins in particular.
Then Why would the Patriots spend a 1st round pick on any guard - and Mankins specifically? I would think the usage of a 1st round pick on a player or a position means that they believe his position/his talent is on the same level as that of a WR, DL, TE, RB, S, etc. The Patriots have spent recent 1st round picks on all those positions. if the position of Guard is not somewhat equal to the value of one of those positions, then why would they spend an equal draft pick on one? Wouldn't spending a 1st round pick on a certain position mean that, if he performs well, they would pay him a fair salary level?
In the Belichick era, the team has shelled out long-term deals at every position on the field- except guard and fullback. It may be coincidence or an organizational philosophy regarding the value of the position.
Spidey sense tells me that this situation gets worse as each side does not agree on the value of the position and Mankins in particular.
Why does the 2006 Neal four-year deal not count as a long-term deal???
Then Why would the Patriots spend a 1st round pick on any guard - and Mankins specifically? I would think the usage of a 1st round pick on a player or a position means that they believe his position/his talent is on the same level as that of a WR, DL, TE, RB, S, etc. The Patriots have spent recent 1st round picks on all those positions. if the position of Guard is not somewhat equal to the value of one of those positions, then why would they spend an equal draft pick on one? Wouldn't spending a 1st round pick on a certain position mean that, if he performs well, they would pay him a fair salary level?
IMO with the way the Pats manage the draft, they will rarely overpay for talent. If you look at Mankins rookie deal, it was very reasonable. He was at the tail end of Rd 1.
Free agency is a different animal IMO.
Belichick has a budget. Perhaps he simply doesn't believe that allocating $6M or more for a guard is prudent.
Personally, I hope that we sign Mankins for $6M, or even a bit more, if that's what it takes. However, Belichick may not agree.
However, Belichick may be fine with drafting Asomah in the 2nd round as insurance and then move on to the tough negotiations, being fully prepared to have Mankins move on.
:woohoo: is reserved for when they do a LTD. Make it happen, Pats FO!!!
I've said this before. There are two outstanding reasons to keep Gostkowski a Patriot:
(A) In recent years, kickers who make it this far generally tend to get better; almost every kicker who's had a 90%+ accuracy season has had it after age 30...
Yes, there are no guarantees, but I'd sure as heck hate to see Gostkowski kicking for Denver or I*** for the next decade+.