Mort: Pats wanted Boldin, but only on 1-year deal like Moss

[PatsChamp88]

But..But wait. According to the vast experts on this site we should be great, BB knows all!

I can't believe we did not get Boldin for what Batlimore signed him for. This man is a proven friggin product and we just let him go to one of our competitor's for very little. Awesome, this FA period just gets better by the day. It's awesome we've re-signed our own during FA, we look exactly like the same team next year.

*waits for the homers to come in and explain how the draft will save all and every rookie will make it, be a super star and lead us to glory*

The draft will save all and every rookie will make it, be a super star and lead us to glory now quit your ********

 

[eom]

But..But wait. According to the vast experts on this site we should be great, BB knows all!

I can't believe we did not get Boldin for what Batlimore signed him for. This man is a proven friggin product and we just let him go to one of our competitor's for very little. Awesome, this FA period just gets better by the day. It's awesome we've re-signed our own during FA, we look exactly like the same team next year.

*waits for the homers to come in and explain how the draft will save all and every rookie will make it, be a super star and lead us to glory*

*waits for the experts to come in and explain how boldin would have turned that baltimore game around, saved all and led us to glory.

 

[Kontradiction]

*waits for the experts to come in and explain how boldin would have turned that baltimore game around, saved all and led us to glory.

That's ridiculous as nobody is nor has been saying that. Are you really going to sit back with a straight face and try to dispute the fact that Boldin wouldn't have been a huge upgrade over what we have now? Come on dude, don't be obtuse.

 

[Ring 6]

I have an interesting question for you guys here:

The pats did not sign any of the top 5 FA $ wise. They extended contracts, but all of them equals probably 6 million more than their old contracts.

So, where is the $ going to go? Trade up in the draft and sign an expensive rookie, or trade for a big name player?

The pats better spend on an impact player..

Has any team ever signed one of the top 5 free agents then gone on to the SB?
I dont know the answer, but eery year it amazes me that we see teams fail by trying to build with high cost free agents and every year we see fans on this board complain that we don't follow that failed plan.

 

[eom]

I'd love to have boldin, but that doesn't mean I'm going to wet myself 'cuz we didn't get him, or that one guy is going to be the difference.

there are plenty of players in the league I'd love to see on the pats.

I'm quite sure they have plenty of considerations that you have absolutely no clue about, so how do you form such a strong opinion about subjects you don't know jack about?
it makes no sense.
if I had more information on the issue maybe I'd be more outraged, but as it stands I think I can feel pretty good about rooting for this team without boldin.

add him to last year's roster and last season ends up with exactly the same result.

 

[eom]

Has any team ever signed one of the top 5 free agents then gone on to the SB?
I dont know the answer, but eery year it amazes me that we see teams fail by trying to build with high cost free agents and every year we see fans on this board complain that we don't follow that failed plan.

absolutely.
I hate to acknowledge the chargers on this list, but the top 4 afc teams of recent years have to be pats, steelers, colts, chargers --- what do those teams have in common besides success?

 

[Ring 6]

Cousin, This is a simple equation.
0ur #53 for Boldin and their third rounder #89. In the stupid NFL Draft Trade Value Chart, our #53 is worth 370 pts. Their #89 is worth 145pts. If you do the math on the points difference, it is 225pts. That is a Trade value of 225pts. or the equivalent to a third round pick of #75. Problem solved.

We could have then used that third rounder #89 as RFA value for third round tendered players Chris Gocong or Kirk Morrison.

Our deal with the third round pick equivalent of #75 would have beaten the Ravens of #88. In fact they threw in a forth rounder. I believe that is pick #121, pending comp picks, with a Trade Chart value of 52 pts. The difference in Trade Chart Value between #75 and #88 in the third round is 65 pts. (even a bigger spread when you consider comp picks)Thus why give up our forth? We would not have had to.

If we weren't so sackless to take a flyer on Boldin for four years at relatively short dollars and only a $10m guarantee (that is like 2 years for $5m and then, let him go numbers), the above was the possibility. Two decent NFL ready players to fill needed roster spots and we still have three picks in the top fifty. Yet we sign Patten for almost a million and we give Neal who will miss as many games this year as Boldin (write this down) a new deal of $2.5m or $3m in 2010.

You tell me. Did the FO get taken by Ozzie or not? Good for Ozzie. He stole Boldin. The Ravens just got better. The Patriots.....resigned three guys they should have resigned months ago. The same three that left the field after being humiliated in a Championship game in their own stadium by these same Ravens.

At the end of the day we keep #22, #45, #47 and get Boldin and Gocong or Kirk Morrison. The Pats F.O. "DID...NOT...DO...THEIR...JOB".

Infuriating. Do not give me "in BB we trust" on this stinker. He got the hell beat out of him on this deal. We are all human and this is a wiff on BB's part. Just not used to seeing such big gaffs.

Bill, time to get a seasoned personnel man to help you even if you don't give him a "title".

DW Toys

Right. ONE PLAYER WAS TRADED AND WE WERENT THE TEAM THAT GOT HIM. Doesnt BB realize we expect him to get every player. If he doesn't he isnt trying.
The job is to build a 53 man team to compete from September to February, not to relinquish all inhibition and logic and get the guy who is asking to be overpaid on March 5th.

 

[JMarr]

But..But wait. According to the vast experts on this site we should be great, BB knows all!

I can't believe we did not get Boldin for what Batlimore signed him for. This man is a proven friggin product and we just let him go to one of our competitor's for very little. Awesome, this FA period just gets better by the day. It's awesome we've re-signed our own during FA, we look exactly like the same team next year.

*waits for the homers to come in and explain how the draft will save all and every rookie will make it, be a super star and lead us to glory*

The operative term being "by the day." It's only day two. If the Pats re-sign Bodden and sign a guy like Derrick Mason for chump change, or still make a big splash with a guy like Brandon Marshall, then I'm fine with passing on Boldin.

 

[The Dynasty]

Cousin, This is a simple equation.
0ur #53 for Boldin and their third rounder #89. In the stupid NFL Draft Trade Value Chart, our #53 is worth 370 pts. Their #89 is worth 145pts. If you do the math on the points difference, it is 225pts. That is a Trade value of 225pts. or the equivalent to a third round pick of #75. Problem solved.

We could have then used that third rounder #89 as RFA value for third round tendered players Chris Gocong or Kirk Morrison.

Our deal with the third round pick equivalent of #75 would have beaten the Ravens of #88. In fact they threw in a forth rounder. I believe that is pick #121, pending comp picks, with a Trade Chart value of 52 pts. The difference in Trade Chart Value between #75 and #88 in the third round is 65 pts. (even a bigger spread when you consider comp picks)Thus why give up our forth? We would not have had to.

If we weren't so sackless to take a flyer on Boldin for four years at relatively short dollars and only a $10m guarantee (that is like 2 years for $5m and then, let him go numbers), the above was the possibility. Two decent NFL ready players to fill needed roster spots and we still have three picks in the top fifty. Yet we sign Patten for almost a million and we give Neal who will miss as many games this year as Boldin (write this down) a new deal of $2.5m or $3m in 2010.

You tell me. Did the FO get taken by Ozzie or not? Good for Ozzie. He stole Boldin. The Ravens just got better. The Patriots.....resigned three guys they should have resigned months ago. The same three that left the field after being humiliated in a Championship game in their own stadium by these same Ravens.

At the end of the day we keep #22, #45, #47 and get Boldin and Gocong or Kirk Morrison. The Pats F.O. "DID...NOT...DO...THEIR...JOB".

Infuriating. Do not give me "in BB we trust" on this stinker. He got the hell beat out of him on this deal. We are all human and this is a wiff on BB's part. Just not used to seeing such big gaffs.

Bill, time to get a seasoned personnel man to help you even if you don't give him a "title".

DW Toys

Relax, man. Its March 5th, the season doesnt begin tomorrow. Just because the Patriots didnt get Boldin doesnt mean that our WRs are going to suck and it doesnt mean that we dont have a chance to better our team this off season.

There are still plenty of our quality WRs that are still available. Boldin wasnt the only one. You are one of those fans that are very impatient and see other teams spending wildly and just because the Patriots arent does not mean that they wont improve their team. It is clear that the Patriots know that they have some holes to fill, they made attempts to get Peppers and Boldin, but stayed within reason.

Just relax, the Patriots will be making some other signings and will be improving their team. I do hope that they dont settle for veterans that are taking pay cuts to end their careers here and I hope we go for guys that are in or just entering their primes but I am not going to sit here on March 5th and completely tear the Pats FO apart because they didnt go broke to get one player.

 

[bucky]

Here's what Mike Lombardi has to say:


"As for Boldin, the Patriots were never involved. Never."


Lombardi: Falcons sign a CB, but it doesn't help | National Football Post

 

[pats1]

Look, the bottom line is that no smart GM would possibly just allow his team to go into the season with guys like Guyton, McGowan, Butler, Wilhite, Brace, et al and just expect them to get better or contribute more or be better leaders. The smart GM would go out through the draft, trades, or free agency and find dependable players to fill those holes, and then if the said rookie develops or shows more promise, then you have a surplus of talent, which is a good thing. But just throwing out sophomores and expecting them to get significantly better when you're trying to win a Super Bowl every year is a recipe for disaster. That's what the Chiefs might do, but not the Pats.

You can only expect to get throttled (again?) by the Ravens, Colts, Jets, and Chargers if you try that route.

 

[pats1]

Right. ONE PLAYER WAS TRADED AND WE WERENT THE TEAM THAT GOT HIM. Doesnt BB realize we expect him to get every player. If he doesn't he isnt trying.
The job is to build a 53 man team to compete from September to February, not to relinquish all inhibition and logic and get the guy who is asking to be overpaid on March 5th.

To date I think they've done a very good job of assembling the bottom part of the roster. I was very happy with the extensions given to Ninkovich, Aiken, LeVoir, Kaczur, Alexander, and Connolly.

The problem is, they've yet to replace some of the talent at the top of the roster that they've lost over the past few seasons. That's just as important when building a 53-man roster.

 

[slash83]

Wow thats pretty disappointing thats what caused the deal to fall through, I wonder if the Pats would of been willing to sign him to a 2 or 3 year deal if that would of been enough. Boldin would have been a huge addition to a position of great need.

 

[eom]

Look, the bottom line is that no smart GM would possibly just allow his team to go into the season with guys like Guyton, McGowan, Butler, Wilhite, Brace, et al and just expect them to get better or contribute more or be better leaders. The smart GM would go out through the draft, trades, or free agency and find dependable players to fill those holes, and then if the said rookie develops or shows more promise, then you have a surplus of talent, which is a good thing. But just throwing out sophomores and expecting them to get significantly better when you're trying to win a Super Bowl every year is a recipe for disaster. That's what the Chiefs might do, but not the Pats.

You can only expect to get throttled (again?) by the Ravens, Colts, Jets, and Chargers if you try that route.

how'd the colts and chargers build those teams they're supposedly throttling the pats with?

edit: oops....now that I think about it, the chargers did make that big chambers signing a while back.

 

[pats1]

how'd the colts and chargers build those teams they're supposedly throttling the pats with?

Does it matter? The fact is that those teams are better right now; it doesn't matter how they got there.

 

[eom]

Does it matter? The fact is that those teams are better right now; it doesn't matter how they got there.

uh...yes it does matter if you're looking for a successful model instead of just randomly trying to sign every player that drives past your office.

and since when did the jets start 'throttling' us?
or the colts, for that matter.

 

[Kontradiction]

I'd love to have boldin, but that doesn't mean I'm going to wet myself 'cuz we didn't get him, or that one guy is going to be the difference.

there are plenty of players in the league I'd love to see on the pats.

I'm quite sure they have plenty of considerations that you have absolutely no clue about, so how do you form such a strong opinion about subjects you don't know jack about?
it makes no sense.
if I had more information on the issue maybe I'd be more outraged, but as it stands I think I can feel pretty good about rooting for this team without boldin.

add him to last year's roster and last season ends up with exactly the same result.

The last statement is full of fail. The absolute biggest problem that our offense had last season was the fact that it would get shut down once Moss and Welker were both shadowed by two guys each. This was because of the lack of a viable third threat. Putting Boldin in there would have surely gotten this team a couple of more wins.

The information we have states that it was the cost of Boldin that kept the Pats away. The cost was no prohibitive. The Pats could have afforded that contract rather easily.

 

[pats1]

uh...yes it does matter if you're looking for a successful model instead of just randomly trying to sign every player that drives past your office.

and since when did the jets start 'throttling' us?
or the colts, for that matter.

The Colts? I was there in the stands for the November 2005 embarassment. I saw the November 2006 home embarassment. I saw the 2006 AFC Championship game. I saw the 2008 loss when Gaffney dropped that ball and Thomas had that penalty. I saw the 2009 loss when, well, you know.

I've seen the November 2006 loss to the Jets in the muck. I saw the 2009 loss in Week 2. I saw Phillip Rivers tear through the Pats' laughable secondary in 2008. I saw the Ravens run all over the Patriots two months ago.

Haven't you had enough of that?

 

[JFK]

DO the Pats think this is 05?
What kind of offer was that?

 

[RobertWeathers]

The information we have states that it was the cost of Boldin that kept the Pats away. The cost was no prohibitive. The Pats could have afforded that contract rather easily.

The cost did not keep the Pats away. The risk of potentially not realizing their ROI did. Right or wrong, they saw Boldin as high-risk for the $$ he wanted.

I'm sure the Pats could have afforded him but they are still operating w/ a budget and have just-as important priorities.