Pro Football Weekly on Givens

[bucky]

I can promise you that PFW's sources are Michael Felger and Tom Curran. They don't know what the Ptriots are thinking any more than me or anybody else on this board. To suggest that the Pats would look to acquire a #2 WR through the draft is a moronic idea. Since BB has been here, the only guy he's drafted with the idea of making him an immediate starter is Mankins. And there's a big difference between making the transition on the OL and WR. On top of all that, this is probably the weakest WR class in recent memory.

 

[mgteich]

Seymour. Light

I can promise you that PFW's sources are Michael Felger and Tom Curran. They don't know what the Ptriots are thinking any more than me or anybody else on this board. To suggest that the Pats would look to acquire a #2 WR through the draft is a moronic idea. Since BB has been here, the only guy he's drafted with the idea of making him an immediate starter is Mankins. And there's a big difference between making the transition on the OL and WR. On top of all that, this is probably the weakest WR class in recent memory.

 

[bucky]

OK. I'll give you Seymour. But Light wasn't counted on to be a starter as a rookie. He won the starting job in camp - sort of like Kaczur or Wilson.

I don't think the Pats would go into TC with the exacat same WR corps they had this year except for a rookie taking Givens' place. IMO, they actually need to keep Givens AND upgrade the #3 WR position.

 

[BelichickFan]

Branch also played a lot immediately although I forget who was the #2 WR behind Brown out of Patten, Branch and Hayes. But Branch had 43 catches and 7 starts in 2002.

 

[Garbanza]

Everyone is saying that David Givens will get some big money offers elsewhere - and he will take it. I do not begrudge a man for taking the money if that is his priority. However, do you really give big money to a number two receiver? And, do any of you believe that Givens could be a number 1?

 

[old 55]

How about this scenario?

The Skins cut Patten, he comes back here and Givens gets signed by the Skins.

Then we could start another Patten thread...

 

[Big_Os_Hometown]

What will really bother me is if he goes to the Jets. I can definitely see it happening. I would not be suprised to see the Eagles try to sign him. They can easily afford to overpay a bit for him as far under the cap as they are. But then the Eagles could also try to get Reggie wayne.

I doubt he goes to the Jets, i think EM is focusing on Defense first (like his mentor) besides they will have cap problems

 

[BelichickFan]

Everyone is saying that David Givens will get some big money offers elsewhere - and he will take it. I do not begrudge a man for taking the money if that is his priority. However, do you really give big money to a number two receiver? And, do any of you believe that Givens could be a number 1?

I don't think Givens could be a Number 1. Honestly, for a Super Bowl contender I think he's a VERY GOOD Number 3. He just isn't fast or quick enough for my liking. But the Falcons gave Peerless Price a huge contract and traded a #1 for the right to do so - so you never know.

 

[mgteich]

First nominee for "the understatement of the year" Yes, the jets do indeed have cap problems.

I doubt he goes to the Jets, i think EM is focusing on Defense first (like his mentor) besides they will have cap problems

 

[mgteich]

I was nitpicking over details. I do think that Light was expected to start. However, perhaps you are right, that we weren't counting on him. I also think bb expected Klemm to start.

I STRONGLY agree with your main point. bb and pioli do NOT count on rookies to start, not even Mankins. They were certainly ready to have Hochstein start if Mankins didn't beat him out. As a matter of principle, they try not to count on rookies to produce at all. Seymour is the exception because he was the #6 pick in the draft. I DO THINK that the top dozen players drafted should be expected to contribute in their first year.

bb and pioli will go into the draft with complete team. There may be a few minor depth issues that could be met with late signings of a couple of veterans at minimum or at about minimum, but certainly no major holes.

WIDE RECEIVER
bb and pioli will have a solution before us, probably with 5 receivers (including Childress) including a qualified top 3, plus returners. IMHO, we will sign three-four free agents before the draft, not counting on Bethel Johnson or Childress.

THE DRAFT IS TO FIND
a possible future starting running back (we haven't done well)
a future starting OLB
a future starting OLB, and of course
the TE of the year

OK. I'll give you Seymour. But Light wasn't counted on to be a starter as a rookie. He won the starting job in camp - sort of like Kaczur or Wilson.

I don't think the Pats would go into TC with the exacat same WR corps they had this year except for a rookie taking Givens' place. IMO, they actually need to keep Givens AND upgrade the #3 WR position.

 

[The Gr8est]

There's no compensation for a Transition player, you just get the chance to match any offer.

Correct, the last player I remember having the transition tag and changing teams was Takeo Spikes. Cincinnati only got a compensation pick which I believe was a 3rd.

Given that, using the transition tag may be a good idea since it will probably get Givens a bigger contract from someone and thus a better compensation pick, or, an offer that the Pats decide to match.

 

[tkayo]

We tried to sign Mason for big $$ so, even though Givens has had good production here, he's not being evaluated in the class of Ward or Mason. Perhaps he's made the most of his athletic ability and there is no more upside?

 

[Miguel]

Everyone is saying that David Givens will get some big money offers elsewhere - and he will take it. I do not begrudge a man for taking the money if that is his priority. However, do you really give big money to a number two receiver? And, do any of you believe that Givens could be a number 1?

What is big money for a number two receiver??

I think that Givens would be a #1 on these teams
Kansas City
Buffalo, if Moulds were to be released (Givens is far more likely to be productive as a #1 than Moulds over the next 4/5 years (expected contract length)
Tennessee
Jacksonville, if Jimmy Smith were to retire (even so, Givens is far more likely to be productive as a #1 than Smith over the next 4/5 years (expected contract length)
Kansas City
Philadelphia
Minnesota
San Francisco

Givens would upgrade the #2 spot on these teams
Miami
Baltimore
Jacksonville
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Houston
San Diego
Washington
Chicago
Carolina

and by upgrading the #2 spots the team would also be upgrading the #3, #4, and #5 spots if we presume that the current #2, #3 and #4 all move down one spot on the depth chart.

Upgrading 4 spots on a 53-man roster with one free-agency signing is tremendous value.

 

[Miguel]

Given that, using the transition tag may be a good idea since it will probably get Givens a bigger contract from someone and thus a better compensation pick, or, an offer that the Pats decide to match.

The transistion figure for wide receivers in 2005 was $6.414 million. It is likely that the number will be less in 2006 because 4 of the top 10 wideouts (Moss, Owens, Mason, and Muhammad) probably had smaller cap numbers than the year before. Let's say that the transition figure for this year is $5.5 million. Would you give Givens a one-year $5.5 million deal if you were running the Patriots?? I would not.

Update. I just checked my email. According to Adamjt13 the 2006 transistion figure for wide receivers is $5,160,000

 

[DaBruinz]

I don't think Givens could be a Number 1. Honestly, for a Super Bowl contender I think he's a VERY GOOD Number 3. He just isn't fast or quick enough for my liking. But the Falcons gave Peerless Price a huge contract and traded a #1 for the right to do so - so you never know.

No Offense, BelichickFan, but this is absurd. You think that Givens is only good enough to be a #3? What have you been watching lately?

Givens is an excellent #2. I think that Givens will get a deal that is better than Houshmandzedah's 4 year 13 million. Just because of inflation.