Outlook on Mankins Not Promising

[PatsFanSince74]

.... They are willing to make Mankins one of the top 4 paid guards in the league. They were not interested in making Deion one of the top paid WR's in the league. But even then they were not seriously interested in trading him, just bringing him to heel. They had already lost Givens to FA and were left with a guy they signed off the scrap heap as their #1 and a revolving door corps of WR's the rest of that season...

It was a mistake. Bill has a thing about repeating mistakes...

I'm with you 100% on Mankins in this thread.

And, a footnote to the Deion fiasco, they left Brady "with a guy they signed off the scrap heap as their #1 and a revolving door corps of WR's the rest of that season..." in the year after Tommy had taken his haircut to leave the Pats room under the cap.

While they more than made up for it in the next season with the addition of Moss and Welker, I don't think they're going to repeat the mistake this year by fiddling with an O Line that only gave up 16 sacks at the same time as an aging Brady is considering his options.

 

[Rob0729]

You can Keep saying it was a mistake and keep repeating YOUR set of facts and opinions..BUT you have NO CLUE as to what other events may have resulted from taking other paths...typical..

I am constantly being accused of being a Patriots homer and a Belichick apologist, but clearly Belichick made a mistake. If Belichick really wanted to trade Branch, he would have traded him before the 2006 draft. Or at the very least, he would have traded him immediately after Branch found a deal and a trade. People forget that nearly a month expired between Branch being able to seek a trade and when he was traded (and he was only given a week to seek a trade). It wasn't until it went to arbitration and the league got scared that Belichick traded him.

The fact of the matter (well, as close to fact as you can get) is the league forced Belichick to trade Branch because they were afraid that Branch would win his arbitration case and it would set a presidence and loophole that would allow players under contract to get out of their contract by brokering their own trades. I think they not only forced the Pats to trade Branch, but convinced the Seahawks to give up a first for him.

Belichick is not perfect. This was clearly a case where he misjudged the situation. He thought he would get Branch back into camp when he found out no one was willing to pay him what he wanted. He misjudged the market and the Jets. He was able to get something out of it to minimize the damages.

But there is no way that Belichick wanted to get rid of Branch. If he did he probably would have paid Givens to stay or gone after another veteran free agent rather than having to trade for Doug Gabriel during the preseason when it was clear that they were not going to have Branch.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think a reasonable person without a dog in the hunt would agree that were Branch simply allowed to hold out the magic 10 games, his contributions late season and especially in the playoffs, say against the Colts, would have been a better course of action for the 2006 Patriots. Most probably would have resulted in another ring.

Long term +/- after that scenario is where I agree we have far more uncertainty.

Odds are he wouldn't have held out 10 weeks, either...

Long term +/- after that is where you either tag and trade him before the next draft or due to his performance (or lack thereof) you sign him for for more than you were previously willing to (or less than he was previously demanding) or let somone else have that pleasure...kinda like they did with Asante and the Eagles...

Thing is it's kind of like the Cassel situation dating back to 2006-2007 where people pointed to the fact that he was still here and not traded for value underscoring the fact he was worthless. While some of us pointed out the value he represented to Bill on the roster probably outweighed any trade value, which in fact became apparent early in the 2008 season...

A draft pick the following season can't generally provide enough value in season because it won't exist on the roster for at least another season... This season Mankins is of more value to them on the roster than another draft pick in a draft still a season away in which they already have 4 picks in the top 64. Sure they can plug Kaczur in, but as someone else pointed out his value (which his contract extension reflected) is in his potential versatility as an average starting RT or backup LT/G, not as a starting guard or above average tackle...

Had Mankins signed his tender last March after demanding a trade based on his now apparent unwillingness to extend at less than top of the position value, they probably could have facilitated one that would have landed them a pick that could have added a player like Asamoah, for example, to the 2010 roster. They didn't do that because they clearly had no idea what they were dealing with. They thought this was a rational guy who cared about where he played enough to be willing to negotiate towards a top 3 deal.

They do a pretty good job evaluating talent, although you could always do better. They don't always do a remotely good enough job evaluating intent. It's like that old adage about aging talent, better to move on a year early than a year late. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me time and time again...shame on me.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If Mankins is unhappy, I (personally) would not want to see him in there late in the season blocking for The Franchise. Offensive linemen have a tendency to let some defenders escape notice if they aren't happy.

I was addressing the Branch situation specificly but as to Mankins I take the opposite opinion. First, I really don't think he'd do that to a fellow team member, his issue is with Kraft/BB and second to do so or even give the suspicion would diminish his FA value as a player. There are plenty of less physically harmfull to team mate ways he could be annoying as hell to BB and get his licks in were he to be so inclined.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

If Mankins is unhappy, I (personally) would not want to see him in there late in the season blocking for The Franchise. Offensive linemen have a tendency to let some defenders escape notice if they aren't happy.

Agreed. We all saw what an unhappy/pouting Adalius gave us. Lackluster effort and a care-free/lackadaisical attitude. Ship him out if that's the way it's going to be.

 

[Triumph]

The whole deal with Branch was that he refused to come to camp until the Pats gave him a new deal. The Pats did the right thing by not caving in because once Branch got away with it, other players would likely use the same tactic.

NE didnt lose the 2006 AFCC because Branch wasnt on the team. NE had a huge lead on Indy at halftime and late in the game, Brady had a WR standing wide open at the LOS with nobody covering him, but Brady never looked his way. It would have been a 1st down at the very least extending that drive. NE couldnt burn clock at the end and that was the downfall.

The defense totally fell apart during the 2nd half of that game. They were gassed and Indy had the heating system turned up in the dome. It was like a sauna in there just sitting.

 

[goheels22002]

Yeah, so what is happening with Mankins?

 

[Aßßynormal]

I think St. Louis lost their LG and they have a new Zillion dollar QB. Chris Long and a pick (3rd) ............. Steven Jackson with a contract adjustment and a major medical exam instead of the pick. Throw in Wheatly, Crable, Law Firm and D. Richard ............ LOL, whatever, get something for him.

Keep the salary structure intact, it's a part of the 'attitude and locker room' equation. In the final analysis we'll get a 3rd round comp pick in 2012, not a 7th rounder as some one said earlier.