Mankins Days as Pat Over?

[Ring 6]

Signing Hali is the only thing that would make me forgive letting Mankins go.

What about upgrading 5 other positions by spending an extra 2 mill each on them? $120 mill, or whatever it will be, can be sliced many, many ways. If we choose not to pay Mankins 10mill, I doubt that means we just pay it to someone else. All 53 rosters slots are involved in these type of decisions.

 

[Deus Irae]

It is clear that the last several SB teams paid their OGs top of the league money. No top 5 cheap money for them. So, we need to do the same and pay Mankins the same as those proven winners and not waste valuable cap money on All-Pro OLBs, CBs and other insignificant positions. Example... repeat SB Champs New Orleans.

Given that they've gotten rid of Samuel and Seymour, with terrible results, sarcasm regarding Mankins really doesn't hold up.

 

[Ring 6]

Given that they've gotten rid of Samuel and Seymour, with terrible results, sarcasm regarding Mankins really doesn't hold up.

I don't consider the results terrible. Even if you do, keeping those 2 and subtracting the numerous players we would have had to in order to pay them is far from certainly a better approach.

 

[Brarrell]

I don't consider the results terrible. Even if you do, keeping those 2 and subtracting the numerous players we would have had to in order to pay them is far from certainly a better approach.

Really it took us 3 free agents and 4 cornerbacks drafted and we have maybe just replaced Asante. The money used on just the the 3 FA cbs " Delta O'neil, Shawn Springs and Leigh Bodden they could have kept Asante and used the extra money other places. They drafted Terrence Wheatley,Whilhite,Butler and McCourty all because of a decision not to pay Asante and I'm not saying they still wouldn't have drafted some of these players but it was a bad move by the Krafts not Belichik the Krafts other than the cap they give BB his budget or bonus money to spend. Onto Seymour they have never replaced him and all you had to do was look at what was on the field at the end of the year sure some of it was due to injury but once again they didn't want to pay the guy so we go two years without his replacement which now as it turns out is the 17th pick in the draft. Just remember two things happened that started their run one was drafting Seymour with the 5th pick in the draft and of course circumstances happening that brought Brady into the picture. They have a once in a generation QB and Coach and i don't think they are maximizing the efforts to surround the team with more talented players just my opinion.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't consider the results terrible. Even if you do, keeping those 2 and subtracting the numerous players we would have had to in order to pay them is far from certainly a better approach.

That's a crazy claim to even make. Not having Samuel has led to "quality" starters like Deltha O'Neal, along with the need to draft the position repeatedly.

O'Neal
Springs
Butler
Wheatley
Wilhite
Bodden
McCourty

All that, and more, and it will still be at least until 2011 before the team can get a CB corps to equal 2007. That's just Samuel, alone, and doesn't get into all the problems that have been brought about by not having a suitable Seymour replacement. This is no longer even arguable by reasonable people.

Letting those two players go without having adequate replacements were two of the stupidest moves Belichick has made since joining the Patriots. As for the "pay" argument, you know that's nonsense.

 

[D-Money]

Huge mistake if they let this guy go.I am starting to buy into the theory that this franchise is cheap!!

 

[PatriotDynasty_12]

I think Belichick and Kraft know Brady has to be protected...We can't let a top 3 guard in the NFL get away cause they're 1 mil or so apart a year. He' s a MUST sign. Bigger than Samuel

 

[mgteich]

We are presuming that Mankins wants to play for the patriots. Given a choice, he may choose someone else.

I think Belichick and Kraft know Brady has to be protected...We can't let a top 3 guard in the NFL get away cause they're 1 mil or so apart a year. He' s a MUST sign. Bigger than Samuel

 

[Ring 6]

That's a crazy claim to even make. Not having Samuel has led to "quality" starters like Deltha O'Neal, along with the need to draft the position repeatedly.

O'Neal
Springs
Butler
Wheatley
Wilhite
Bodden
McCourty

All that, and more, and it will still be at least until 2011 before the team can get a CB corps to equal 2007. That's just Samuel, alone, and doesn't get into all the problems that have been brought about by not having a suitable Seymour replacement. This is no longer even arguable by reasonable people.

Letting those two players go without having adequate replacements were two of the stupidest moves Belichick has made since joining the Patriots. As for the "pay" argument, you know that's nonsense.

Of course you are going to have difficulty replacing the level of play of a top player at his position. Duh.
But it isnt about being best at one corner spot, its about having the best team. Numerous decision have been made that could not have happened by paying Samuel 8 mill or whatever that number was.
Its a capped league. Under a salary cap when the cost of one positions goes up, which it would have if Samuel were signed long term, then it would have been cut from elsewhere.
The decision was not whether the corner back spot would be better without him, but whether the ROSTER and TEAM would be.

"Reasonable people" would understand that.

 

[Ring 6]

Really it took us 3 free agents and 4 cornerbacks drafted and we have maybe just replaced Asante. The money used on just the the 3 FA cbs " Delta O'neil, Shawn Springs and Leigh Bodden they could have kept Asante and used the extra money other places. They drafted Terrence Wheatley,Whilhite,Butler and McCourty all because of a decision not to pay Asante and I'm not saying they still wouldn't have drafted some of these players but it was a bad move by the Krafts not Belichik the Krafts other than the cap they give BB his budget or bonus money to spend. Onto Seymour they have never replaced him and all you had to do was look at what was on the field at the end of the year sure some of it was due to injury but once again they didn't want to pay the guy so we go two years without his replacement which now as it turns out is the 17th pick in the draft. Just remember two things happened that started their run one was drafting Seymour with the 5th pick in the draft and of course circumstances happening that brought Brady into the picture. They have a once in a generation QB and Coach and i don't think they are maximizing the efforts to surround the team with more talented players just my opinion.

Samuel was Belichicks decision.
Samuel was not worth the money. Understanding that BB accpeted a dropoff at his position rather than oher dropoffs, or missed opportunities to improve at other positons.
In a Pollyanna world we could say we should have kept Samuel because he wasn't replaced with as good a player, but there are numerous other factors that are too interrelated to ignore.

 

[Ring 6]

As for the "pay" argument, you know that's nonsense.

You will have to explain to me what I know apparently.
I know that the consequence of keeping these players would be many many other moves that we would not have been able to make.
In a league with a cap, please enlighten me on how cap cost considerations are nonsense.

 

[Ring 6]

Huge mistake if they let this guy go.I am starting to buy into the theory that this franchise is cheap!!

If you go out to dinner one night a week and spend $200 then eat spaghetti and butter and your total food budget $210 and I spent $30 a day am I cheap because I don't go to the expensive restaurant?

 

[javajunky]

The reason guards are not drafted high is that they are replaceable. Mankins is replaceable. He might be the best player on line, but he is not the most valuable. I worry more about losing Light than Mankins. There always seems to be a shortage of quality left tackles, I have never heard about a shortage of quality guards in the NFL. Even the Jets who totally messed up their guard situation muddled through it.

Elite guards are a luxury, not a necessity. The quality of interior line play is set by it's weakest link, not it strongest. Give me a guard combo of two red chips over a blue chip and jag any day. If there is free agency this year, it will be flooded with quality guards and Mankin's money will get you two. I hope we resign the beast, but I would never go into cap hell for a guard.

 

[andrewgarrr]

That's a crazy claim to even make. Not having Samuel has led to "quality" starters like Deltha O'Neal, along with the need to draft the position repeatedly.

O'Neal
Springs
Butler
Wheatley
Wilhite
Bodden
McCourty

All that, and more, and it will still be at least until 2011 before the team can get a CB corps to equal 2007. That's just Samuel, alone, and doesn't get into all the problems that have been brought about by not having a suitable Seymour replacement. This is no longer even arguable by reasonable people.

Letting those two players go without having adequate replacements were two of the stupidest moves Belichick has made since joining the Patriots. As for the "pay" argument, you know that's nonsense.

I don't think it's fair to call the Seymour move terrible until we see what pans out from the 2011 draft. Seymour was the best 34 DE in the last decade. He was certainly worth a long term contract, but considering the money that would've had to have been tied up at the DL, Wilfork was a bigger priority because (1) a good 34 nose tackle is equally rare as a good 34 DE (2) age* (3) Wilfork was probably cheaper. Considering the long term prospects of the team, it was worth getting the first round draft pick for him. If the team still maintains serious pass-rush deficiencies throughout the 2011 season (after the 2011 draft), then I'd cough it up as a mistake. For now, the jury is still out.

In all honesty, Seymour will probably be an effective player for as long, if not longer, than Wilfork. I don't think age was that big of a factor. I would've loved it if we kept both of them, but Brady was a bigger priority than either of them.

Samuel was always a poor tackler and gave up too many big plays. 2008 is a wash because Brady went down. 2009 we lost to the Ravens due to poor front seven play and poor OL play (same reasons we probably lost to the Jets in 2010). I don't think CB was a HUGE concern for the team when he left. He was not worth the money. He makes $8-million a year. Considering, Brady and Wilfork's soon to be expiring contracts, Samuel was expendable.

 

[andrewgarrr]

The reason guards are not drafted high is that they are replaceable. Mankins is replaceable. He might be the best player on line, but he is not the most valuable. I worry more about losing Light than Mankins. There always seems to be a shortage of quality left tackles, I have never heard about a shortage of quality guards in the NFL. Even the Jets who totally messed up their guard situation muddled through it.

Elite guards are a luxury, not a necessity. The quality of interior line play is set by it's weakest link, not it strongest. Give me a guard combo of two red chips over a blue chip and jag any day. If there is free agency this year, it will be flooded with quality guards and Mankin's money will get you two. I hope we resign the beast, but I would never go into cap hell for a guard.

Light would return to the Patriots if they offered him a similar contract, or one with slightly less guaranteed money than any other team. Mankins would return to the Patriots if and only if they offered him an identical contract as any other team, or one with slightly more guaranteed money. I expect Light to return and Mankins to be tagged and traded. I wish I was wrong, but I don't think the team wants to spend $10-million a year at the left guard position.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think it's fair to call the Seymour move terrible until we see what pans out from the 2011 draft. Seymour was the best 34 DE in the last decade. He was certainly worth a long term contract, but considering the money that would've had to have been tied up at the DL, Wilfork was a bigger priority because (1) a good 34 nose tackle is equally rare as a good 34 DE (2) age* (3) Wilfork was probably cheaper. Considering the long term prospects of the team, it was worth getting the first round draft pick for him. If the team still maintains serious pass-rush deficiencies throughout the 2011 season (after the 2011 draft), then I'd cough it up as a mistake. For now, the jury is still out.

In all honesty, Seymour will probably be an effective player for as long, if not longer, than Wilfork. I don't think age was that big of a factor. I would've loved it if we kept both of them, but Brady was a bigger priority than either of them.

Samuel was always a poor tackler and gave up too many big plays. 2008 is a wash because Brady went down. 2009 we lost to the Ravens due to poor front seven play and poor OL play (same reasons we probably lost to the Jets in 2010). I don't think CB was a HUGE concern for the team when he left. He was not worth the money. He makes $8-million a year. Considering, Brady and Wilfork's soon to be expiring contracts, Samuel was expendable.

I dont think you can look at it in a vaccuum. Take Seymour for example. Seymour not being here in 2009 should be compared to the return on the investment. You really cannot look at Seymour of 2010 and beyond because his contract was up. We needed to use the tag on Wilfork and we eventually gave Wilfork a huge contract. Has we not traded Seymour, there was very likely a choice between Seymour and Wilfork in 2010, either with the tag, or with the cap cost. Even though there was no cap in 2010 both contracts would have extend a lot longer, and even if both were still here there would have to be numerous other players not here to make up for it, and there is simply no way to determine the net effect of Seymour or all of those other players.
In hindsight Seymour here in 2009 would have made no appreciable difference to the outcome of that season, IMO (I think that is a well agreed upon opinion) so the trade was good because instead of no gain in 2009, the same thing in 2010 (no Seymour either way) we now have a #1 pick to contribute in the future.
Only if you think Seymour in 2009 was the difference in winning a SB or feel we should have kept him instead of Wilfork, OR think we should have 2 of the highest paid DLs in the NFL and forget everything else, is the trade a bad one.
Saying that the RDE position has gotten worse so it was a bad trade is either the most myopic view possible, or an attempt to purposely slant the argument in the direction you wish to support, facts or not.

 

[RyanP421]

If you go out to dinner one night a week and spend $200 then eat spaghetti and butter and your total food budget $210 and I spent $30 a day am I cheap because I don't go to the expensive restaurant?

Very well said...

The idea that the Patriots organization is cheap is ignorant. They spread the wealth and are extremely responsible and smart with the business side of football.

Fiscally responsible. Not cheap.

 

[andrewgarrr]

I dont think you can look at it in a vaccuum. Take Seymour for example. Seymour not being here in 2009 should be compared to the return on the investment. You really cannot look at Seymour of 2010 and beyond because his contract was up. We needed to use the tag on Wilfork and we eventually gave Wilfork a huge contract. Has we not traded Seymour, there was very likely a choice between Seymour and Wilfork in 2010, either with the tag, or with the cap cost. Even though there was no cap in 2010 both contracts would have extend a lot longer, and even if both were still here there would have to be numerous other players not here to make up for it, and there is simply no way to determine the net effect of Seymour or all of those other players.
In hindsight Seymour here in 2009 would have made no appreciable difference to the outcome of that season, IMO (I think that is a well agreed upon opinion) so the trade was good because instead of no gain in 2009, the same thing in 2010 (no Seymour either way) we now have a #1 pick to contribute in the future.
Only if you think Seymour in 2009 was the difference in winning a SB or feel we should have kept him instead of Wilfork, OR think we should have 2 of the highest paid DLs in the NFL and forget everything else, is the trade a bad one.
Saying that the RDE position has gotten worse so it was a bad trade is either the most myopic view possible, or an attempt to purposely slant the argument in the direction you wish to support, facts or not.

All I said was that you cannot come to a conclusion on the Seymour trade until the end of the 2011 season, when we can have some legitimate judgement on how the draft pick turned out. As it stands now, I think the trade was a good one. If the draft pick turns out to be a dud, then it was a terrible one.

Do you agree that extending Wilfork was more important, or was a better choice, than extending Seymour, considering it was very unlikely we could keep both?

 

[Ring 6]

All I said was that you cannot come to a conclusion on the Seymour trade until the end of the 2011 season, when we can have some legitimate judgement on how the draft pick turned out. As it stands now, I think the trade was a good one. If the draft pick turns out to be a dud, then it was a terrible one.

Do you agree that extending Wilfork was more important, or was a better choice, than extending Seymour, considering it was very unlikely we could keep both?

I know, my post wasnt intended to read anything into yours.

 

[Jackson 2]

That's a crazy claim to even make. Not having Samuel has led to "quality" starters like Deltha O'Neal, along with the need to draft the position repeatedly.

O'Neal
Springs
Butler
Wheatley
Wilhite
Bodden
McCourty

All that, and more, and it will still be at least until 2011 before the team can get a CB corps to equal 2007. That's just Samuel, alone, and doesn't get into all the problems that have been brought about by not having a suitable Seymour replacement. This is no longer even arguable by reasonable people.

Letting those two players go without having adequate replacements were two of the stupidest moves Belichick has made since joining the Patriots. As for the "pay" argument, you know that's nonsense.

Holy cow!!! It's Steve from Fall River!!!