Pats and Vollmer agree

[BlueThunder]

Not with his apparently declining coverage abilities, no. Given his contract, it wouldn't seem that the Patriots are particularly confident, either. He could be a pleasant surprise in coverage and earn the starting job, or he could be a camp casualty. Neither would shock me.

So you think he'll be a nice addition....no wait, you think he'll be cut....

That's one way of covering all the bases

You sure you're not a sports writer???

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

So you think he'll be a nice addition....no wait, you think he'll be cut....

That's one way of covering all the bases

You sure you're not a sports writer???

You're obviously unfamiliar with quantum superposition before the waveform collapses

 

[ctpatsfan77]

You're obviously unfamiliar with quantum superposition before the waveform collapses

At the heart of quantum mechanics is uncertainty.

This is why quantum mechanics is not needed to explain the suckitude of the JEST.

 

[Deus Irae]

So if Amendola blows up next year and has same catches and same yards as Welker you would still call him a huge downgrade?

It would depend upon context.

I don't see how a definite statement about what is yet to come is correct. I call that a guess at best an educated guess, but still a guess, and that's all you are doing when it comes to the future. Lets agree to disagree.

When analysing the recent offseason FA moves, we should look at the FA moves in their current context, which is early offseason, with players coming and going. Later, when looking back, we can see if said moves panned out. Last year, for example, the offseason moves looked brilliant early on. The team was lauded accordingly. Doing the post-season postmortem, though, results in a very different grade. It's a matter of grading theoretically rational potential versus grading a finished product.

Or, to take it out of the Patriots realm for the sake of trying to get people to be rational instead of knee jerking in defense of the team.....

If you trade LeBron James and get back Rajon Rondo, you downgraded like crazy. It doesn't matter how the season later works out, because you're looking at the players at the time of the trade, not reaching back with hindsight. That's a perfectly legitimate grade technique to use as a follow up/flashback, but it's for a later time.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you think he'll be a nice addition....no wait, you think he'll be cut....

That's one way of covering all the bases

You sure you're not a sports writer???

I think he's a player who was on a bad team. I think that bad team thought he'd lost enough of his ability to cover that he was benched on obvious passing downs.

The question in a situation like this is whether we're getting Rodney Harrison II (I doubt it, but anything's possible), a gently declining former star who'll struggle to hang on for any length of time (more possible, IMO), or a guy who's time has passed (my guess is that it's somewhere between these last two).

I'm not trying to cover all the bases. I'm genuinely unsure of what the guy will bring to the table. My stated preference is that they draft a safety in round one and a WR in round 2. That would solve the problem, one way or the other.

 

[resdubwhite]

It would depend upon context.

Thank you. That made me smile.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thank you. That made me smile.

:noidea:


This is essentially the draft grade argument applied to free agency.

The Patriots 2009 draft looked good in May, 2009. In March, 2013, the Patriots 2009 draft looks like a steaming pile. Both "grades" are right, depending on when you're looking, because you're evaluating based upon different criteria and different data.

 

[resdubwhite]

:noidea:


This is essentially the draft grade argument applied to free agency.

The Patriots 2009 draft looked good in May, 2009. In March, 2013, the Patriots 2009 draft looks like a steaming pile. Both "grades" are right, depending on when you're looking, because you're evaluating based upon different criteria and different data.

I think if a receiver comes in and has a very good year (we're agreed Welker numbers are a good year) then it leaves very little argument. there isn't much context.
Its a productive year. If he does it for 2 or 3 years then he's almost wlker like.

 

[BlueThunder]

DI.... Agree that Wilson is a player that we don't know how he'll fit on defense. At the very least I tend to think he'll be better than Chung and he'll be put in situations that maximize his abilities. Not sure if that's in the box in run support or blitzing on passing downs. He might just revive his career a bit with the Pats, at least that's what I'm hoping for. At a minimum he'll be a good mentor for Wilson and the other young DB's.

I don't see a downside unless he absolutely sucks, in which case, as you stated, he'll be cut.

 

[BlueThunder]

You're obviously unfamiliar with quantum superposition before the waveform collapses

Hmmm..."The latest thinking is that there is no wave-function collapse. Instead, there is decoherence and world splitting."

Now I'm confused

 

[Sicilian]

You're obviously unfamiliar with quantum superposition before the waveform collapses

Is that related to quantum immortality? If so I'd rather not contemplate it too hard... last time I tried I had a stroke.

 

[Ring 6]

So if Amendola blows up next year and has same catches and same yards as Welker you would still call him a huge downgrade?



I don't see how a definite statement about what is yet to come is correct. I call that a guess at best an educated guess, but still a guess, and that's all you are doing when it comes to the future. Lets agree to disagree.

You are correct here. Transactions are made for how players will play going forward. Judging moves by your opinion is only correct or incorrect one you see the results.

 

[Ring 6]

:noidea:


This is essentially the draft grade argument applied to free agency.

The Patriots 2009 draft looked good in May, 2009. In March, 2013, the Patriots 2009 draft looks like a steaming pile. Both "grades" are right, depending on when you're looking, because you're evaluating based upon different criteria and different data.

That is so totally wrong. If the draft turned out poorly the people who called it good a month after it happened were abjectly wrong.
How can you possibly say calling what turns out to be a bad draft good when it happened is correct? The criteria is the same but one is a prediciton and the other is an assessment. How you can call a prediction that turns out wrong good one?
This is constipated thinking.

 

[BlueThunder]

Isn't constipated thinking one in which you don't give a ***** ?

 

[Deus Irae]

DI.... Agree that Wilson is a player that we don't know how he'll fit on defense. At the very least I tend to think he'll be better than Chung and he'll be put in situations that maximize his abilities. Not sure if that's in the box in run support or blitzing on passing downs. He might just revive his career a bit with the Pats, at least that's what I'm hoping for. At a minimum he'll be a good mentor for Wilson and the other young DB's.

I don't see a downside unless he absolutely sucks, in which case, as you stated, he'll be cut.

I can see a downside, but it's really just in the opportunity lost or not taken. Those happen all the time (you get player "a", so you don't get player "b" because you now can't, or because you think player "a" is the solution), so I'm pretty much with you. Once he was the player, it came down to covering for failure, IMO, and they seem to have done that financially.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think if a receiver comes in and has a very good year (we're agreed Welker numbers are a good year) then it leaves very little argument. there isn't much context.

Of course there is, and I already pointed it out.

 

[resdubwhite]

Of course there is, and I already pointed it out.

a 1300 yard 110 catch season in 2013 looks good in 2014 and looks good in 2017.

Analysing a draft 6 months after it happened then after 5 years is a completely different thing.

 

[ivanvamp]

That is so totally wrong. If the draft turned out poorly the people who called it good a month after it happened were abjectly wrong.
How can you possibly say calling what turns out to be a bad draft good when it happened is correct? The criteria is the same but one is a prediciton and the other is an assessment. How you can call a prediction that turns out wrong good one?
This is constipated thinking.

I understand what you're saying here, Andy, but consider this thought experiment. Say in this draft the Patriots manage to acquire 5 of the top 10 players in the entire draft. They just luck out and everyone else is dumb. Then those guys, in pre-season camp, all get injured and never play a down for the Patriots.

Was it a good draft? It turns out to not be, but after the draft, NOBODY in their right mind would criticize it.

Admittedly a stretch in terms of an illustration, but it serves to make the point that Deus is offering.

 

[Marqui]

Mike Garafolo @MikeGarafolo 58s

Vollmer's 4-yr deal w/ NE includes $7m signing bonus, another $7.75m in base salaries + $10m in roster bonuses/incentives. Almost $25m max.

 

[patfanken]

Mike Garafolo @MikeGarafolo 58s

Vollmer's 4-yr deal w/ NE includes $7m signing bonus, another $7.75m in base salaries + $10m in roster bonuses/incentives. Almost $25m max.

That makes sense. $7MM up front is about right. Now the key will be how the Pats protected themselves from injury. If you look on it, $6.5MM/yr for a healthy Volmer is a good deal. If he can't stay healthy then obviously the cost will be a lot less.