Pot Roast visiting - (UPDATED - He's Reportedly Joining the Team)

[Ring 6]

Maybe we step up a offer because we are tired of losing players to rival clubs lol

There are 32 teams. Every team loses players they want to other teams.

 

[Jimke]

According to the Washington Post, this is a done deal with the Redskins.

 

[Ivan]

There's the draft which is strong in DTs.

With potential problem children like Martellus Bennett on board BB may want to limit the potential issue of a disgruntled locker room and pass on Melton.

Melton's rep there isn't good.

I don't believe Bennett will be any kind of problem in the Patriots lockerroom. Guys like Bennett make a little noise when they are stuck on losers but know how to fit in and produce on winners.

 

[Galeb]

I don't believe Bennett will be any kind of problem in the Patriots lockerroom. Guys like Bennett make a little more when they are stuck on losers but know how to fit in and produce on winners.

I don't think it's about losing with Bennet. He just seems like the type of guy that doesn't mesh well with 20something year old millionaires that were coddled since high school. He also wants big money.

 

[JMC00]

I don't believe Bennett will be any kind of problem in the Patriots lockerroom. Guys like Bennett make a little noise when they are stuck on losers but know how to fit in and produce on winners.

I find it funny that some of the same people that were killing Bill when the jests got marshall for a 5th round pick didn't want to hear about him being problem are the ones talking about Bennett being a problem..

As for Melton. I mean it'd obviously be on a 1 year deal. I find it very hard and absolutely hysterical to think Henry Melton would be able to come into Foxboro and shake up the locker room

It's an absolute insult to Bill Belichick and Tom Brady that a #4 DT could come in here and divide the locker room.

 

[Ivan]

Maybe we step up a offer because we are tired of losing players to rival clubs lol

That's the opposite of how the Patriots do business. The Patriots set up their roster financially by setting their player value and sticking close to it. They will go over occasionally when circumstances dictate it, e.g. paying Welker 10 million for one season when they valued him at 8, but they don't let other teams dictate what they will pay players, it they can get them for close to their price they try to get it done, it not they go to their next option. The Patriots really try to keep unit costs in order and rarely make moves that throw them out of whack, but will do so occasionally if they present a rare opportunity for a transcendent player, e.g....Revis and Moss. The lower down the ladder they go the more rigid they become. So while they will go millions over to get a guy like Revis they won't budge to bring in a back up rotational player like Fairly or Knighton. That's as it should be and a big reason they are so consistently good, they never have to have garage sales to get back under the cap.

 

[Ross12]

TBH Brown-Branch-Easley-Jones is a fine group of DTs in my opinion. The issue stems from Easley and his injury issues, which makes the need for a fifth quality DT higher. Easley and Jones are also much more pass-play specialized, so an injury to Brown or Branch puts you in a pinch on run downs. Having Knighton helps a lot, but a draft pick can probably also serve this purpose. Still, it would be nice to be able to wrap up this issue now and be able to use the draft picks on "best available" instead of "need".

 

[Ivan]

I don't think it's about losing with Bennet. He just seems like the type of guy that doesn't mesh well with 20something year old millionaires that were coddled since high school. He also wants big money.

Bennett's production warrants a big contract.

 

[primetime]

I don't think it's about losing with Bennet. He just seems like the type of guy that doesn't mesh well with 20something year old millionaires that were coddled since high school. He also wants big money.

Find me this mythical player that doesn't want big money. Bennett was pissed because he's underpaid and because the Bears kept him off the field so he wouldn't put up big counting stats.

 

[Galeb]

Find me this mythical player that doesn't want big money. Bennett was pissed because he's underpaid and because the Bears kept him off the field so he wouldn't put up big counting stats.

OK, I will rephrase. Bennett appears to want top dollar. Regardless of your opinion, not all players go "all in" for top dollar and most that do aren't Patriots for long. Your statement that the bears kept him off the field to limit his stats is a huge assumption.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

TBH Brown-Branch-Easley-Jones is a fine group of DTs in my opinion. The issue stems from Easley and his injury issues, which makes the need for a fifth quality DT higher. Easley and Jones are also much more pass-play specialized, so an injury to Brown or Branch puts you in a pinch on run downs. Having Knighton helps a lot, but a draft pick can probably also serve this purpose. Still, it would be nice to be able to wrap up this issue now and be able to use the draft picks on "best available" instead of "need".

I agree. i'd like to see them use number 60 and 61 on travis henry and braxton miller and not on a DT.

 

[Ross12]

I agree. i'd like to see them use number 60 and 61 on travis henry and braxton miller and not on a DT.

I would like to see them trade one of the seconds down for more capital and just take best available with like 12-13 picks. There's certainly not room for that many rookies on the roster, but more picks = more chances at hitting, and it would be good to get some competition at lots of positions - DT, OT, RB, WR, OG, CB to name a few.

 

[primetime]

OK, I will rephrase. Bennett appears to want top dollar. Regardless of your opinion, not all players go "all in" for top dollar and most that do aren't Patriots for long. Your statement that the bears kept him off the field to limit his stats is a huge assumption.

The Patriots generally pay market value for players, they just don't do it in unrestricted free agency all that much. The idea that every Patriots player plays below market value is mythical; Brady does, but he's a unique case. The other ones currently below market value will be coming up for renewal relatively soon. These guys are workers, they care about money. There may be a few other concerns, such as moving a family, but for almost everyone those are secondary.

As for Bennett, it doesn't matter whether it was real or merely perceived because it's what he was explicitly frustrated about. The Bears also admitted to making up a rib injury so they could stick him on IR, so we shouldn't pretend his perception wasn't rational.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'm ok with this beast going elsewhere, while he is an excellent run stuffing lard, I don't see acquiring a different lard at some point being too difficult, either via the draft or free agency/scrap heap. Branch, Siliga and Hicks were all acquired for little investment.

 

[Galeb]

The Patriots generally pay market value for players, they just don't do it in unrestricted free agency all that much. The idea that every Patriots player plays below market value is mythical; Brady does, but he's a unique case. The other ones currently below market value will be coming up for renewal relatively soon. These guys are workers, they care about money. There may be a few other concerns, such as moving a family, but for almost everyone those are secondary.

As for Bennett, it doesn't matter whether it was real or merely perceived because it's what he was explicitly frustrated about. The Bears also admitted to making up a rib injury so they could stick him on IR, so we shouldn't pretend his perception wasn't rational.

I never said every Patriot plays below market value. Brady isn't the only Pats veteran that signed a contract for significantly less than market value. Chris long could have made much more with another team. That said, I don't believe that their are a lot of players who take "home town discounts".

The Pats establish their own value for players, and that rarely exceeds market value. The Pats have been in situations where they paid what I would consider "top dollar" a few times. Such contracts have traditionally been given to consistent, good locker room guys that are relatively durable and play a critical role in the schemes the Pats wish to run. Logan Mankins, Vince Wilfork and Devin McCourty are recent examples. It is worth noting that the Pats didn't pickup Wilfork's option for another year and Mankins was traded.

Teams that are desperate for a player will pay "top dollar", which, IMO, is more than market value. Often times, teams that are desperate aren't attractive landing spots for a variety of reasons. Many players that sign contracts probably could have played ball a bit harder and got more money at a more desperate team. Aspects like location (NYC vs. Green Bay for example), team culture, winning, state taxes, friends on the team, projected role and stability of the coaching staff are significant factors in many players' decision making.

I don't want to get into a semantics debate that "top dollar" is market value. It is a logical distinction that can be useful in analysis, and to deny such a thing simply make's one analysis less granular.

Assumptions can be rational, and are often true, but they are still assumptions until they are proven.

 

[primetime]

Assumptions can be rational, and are often true, but they are still assumptions until they are proven.

The question was why Bennett was a discontent, though. That's why.

 

[zydecochris]

That's the opposite of how the Patriots do business. The Patriots set up their roster financially by setting their player value and sticking close to it. They will go over occasionally when circumstances dictate it, e.g. paying Welker 10 million for one season when they valued him at 8, but they don't let other teams dictate what they will pay players, it they can get them for close to their price they try to get it done, it not they go to their next option. The Patriots really try to keep unit costs in order and rarely make moves that throw them out of whack, but will do so occasionally if they present a rare opportunity for a transcendent player, e.g....Revis and Moss. The lower down the ladder they go the more rigid they become. So while they will go millions over to get a guy like Revis they won't budge to bring in a back up rotational player like Fairly or Knighton. That's as it should be and a big reason they are so consistently good, they never have to have garage sales to get back under the cap.

Agreed, the Patriots are pretty careful about only paying top dollar for a real difference maker, as opposed to a rotational backup like Fairley or Knighton.

Actually, I couldn't figure out why the Patriots were interested in Fairley in the first place and made several posts to that effect in another thread. I had thought that he didn't seem like a Patriots-type of player, a super-talented college player (he absolutely dominated) that got by on his natural talent but evidently had a poor work effort and routinely was out of shape and overweight for the Lions. I'm not too impressed by players that are being paid millions of dollars for being an athlete that can't be bother to stay in shape.

...However, I've read some more recent articles that indicate that he may have turned things around last year for the Rams, I guess he lost weight and got in good shape, and perhaps has become more professional, so maybe I was off base. It will be interesting to see how he does this year with New Orleans.

 

[Galeb]

The question was why Bennett was a discontent, though. That's why.

Gotchya. I mistakenly thought you were saying that's why the Bears did it, not just describing his perception of it.

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

Any idea what the skins gave knighton in terms of money? This dude's a loser to pass an opportunity to win a championship.

 

[Deus Irae]

Any idea what the skins gave knighton in terms of money? This dude's a loser to pass an opportunity to win a championship.

Unless I've missed something, Knighton is currently unsigned.