Should we Trade UP for that player?

[Ochmed Jones]

I think Dan Williams from Tennessee could play 3-4 DT at 6'3" 330#. He's climbing fast, and will likely go late 1st/early 2nd round. He could also be drafted by a team like Minnesota looking to replace Pat Williams with a big DT in the 4-3.

Add Pittsburgh to your list if Casey Hampton leaves and they stay with the 3-4.

I was going to add KC to the list as well. Not sure what they have on the D Line,but they need help big time.

 

[mayoclinic]

I was going to add KC to the list as well. Not sure what they have on the D Line,but they need help big time.

Also possible the Jets, given Kris Jenkins' age and injury woes.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

The Chefs have a decent D-line if they can get a NT. Dorsey and Jackson aren't half bad on the ends.

 

[mgteich]

I would expect that Wilfork would be given an exclusive rights franchise tag. No one will give us two firsts for one year of service, especially since they don't get to negotiate a contract with Wilfork beforehand.

I also see no reason to try to unload him. It makes sense to try to develop a player to fill that role in 2011.

(A) IIRC, Belichick had said they had discussed trading Wilfork to the Raiders instead of Seymour, but Al Davis flatly refused.

(B) If the Pats franchise Wilfork, they could decide to use the exclusive franchise tag, as Davis did with Asomugha. [It carries a higher price tag, but prevents the player from negotiating with other teams.] If that happens, then franchise + trade is possible. If it doesn't, then I only see Wilfork leaving if a team is willing to sign him to an offer sheet, which requires that they cough up two firsts.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I also see no reason to try to unload [Wilfork]. It makes sense to try to develop a player to fill that role in 2011.

I was responding to O'Doyle's post ("there is a fairly strong possibility that Vince Wilfork is going to be franchised and subsequently traded."). I don't see any logical reason to do it, either.

In any case, I don't expect the Pats to just franchise Wilfork; I expect that they will franchise him (if necessary) as a prelude to signing a long-term deal.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, we will franchise him and try to negotiate a long-term deal. There are a lot of factors that would go into that kind of deal being completed.

I was responding to O'Doyle's post ("there is a fairly strong possibility that Vince Wilfork is going to be franchised and subsequently traded."). I don't see any logical reason to do it, either.

In any case, I don't expect the Pats to just franchise Wilfork; I expect that they will franchise him (if necessary) as a prelude to signing a long-term deal.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I would expect that Wilfork would be given an exclusive rights franchise tag. No one will give us two firsts for one year of service, especially since they don't get to negotiate a contract with Wilfork beforehand.

I also see no reason to try to unload him. It makes sense to try to develop a player to fill that role in 2011.

I'm surprised I didn't notice this earlier.

The two first-rounder price is paid for a team that signs a franchised player to an offer sheet that the original team chooses not to match, so the question is really "Do we really want this player to be able to look for other deals?"

 

[cstjohn17]

I'm surprised I didn't notice this earlier.

The two first-rounder price is paid for a team that signs a franchised player to an offer sheet that the original team chooses not to match, so the question is really "Do we really want this player to be able to look for other deals?"

In any case, no way he walks. Look at DT across the league that could play the nose.

Hampton & Williams are aging and past their prime, Jenkins is injury prone. Ngata, Haynesworth and the William brothers are all locked up. Wilfork is in his prime. They have let other players walk in the past, so nothing will surprise me but he is an anchor. No point rebuilding your LB core if the defensive line is garbage.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm surprised I didn't notice this earlier.

The two first-rounder price is paid for a team that signs a franchised player to an offer sheet that the original team chooses not to match, so the question is really "Do we really want this player to be able to look for other deals?"

That's correct. It's never 2 first round picks for 1 year of service.

Under the "exclusive rights" franchise tag (such as Baltimore used on Terrell Suggs last year) other teams are precluded from making offers to a player. The player's options are merely to sign the franchise offer, to sign a long term deal, or to hold out. The exclusive rights tag is more expensive than the regular tag but excludes outside offers which might give the player leverage.

Under the regular franchise tag (such as Carolina used on Julius Peppers), as long as the player hasn't signed the tag (at which piont he is under contract and is the property of his team) teams are free to offer him long term deals. If the franchised player signs a long term contract offer from another team, the team which franchised him has the option of matching the offer and keeping him or declining to match and losing him, but getting 2 first round picks in return.

So what would the Pats prefer, assuming Wilfork doesn't sign a long term extension: to tag him with the exclusive rights label precluding outside offers but costing more, or to allow other teams to make offers for him and either match them or get 2 first round picks as compensation?

 

[bigcountry75]

That's correct. It's never 2 first round picks for 1 year of service.

Under the "exclusive rights" franchise tag (such as Baltimore used on Terrell Suggs last year) other teams are precluded from making offers to a player. The player's options are merely to sign the franchise offer, to sign a long term deal, or to hold out. The exclusive rights tag is more expensive than the regular tag but excludes outside offers which might give the player leverage.

Under the regular franchise tag (such as Carolina used on Julius Peppers), as long as the player hasn't signed the tag (at which piont he is under contract and is the property of his team) teams are free to offer him long term deals. If the franchised player signs a long term contract offer from another team, the team which franchised him has the option of matching the offer and keeping him or declining to match and losing him, but getting 2 first round picks in return.

So what would the Pats prefer, assuming Wilfork doesn't sign a long term extension: to tag him with the exclusive rights label precluding outside offers but costing more, or to allow other teams to make offers for him and either match them or get 2 first round picks as compensation?

My question would be are the first round picks for 2010 and 2011 or can the team giving them up decide? I love wilfork but for 2 firsts and Mount Cody out there even younger and could develop into one hell of a NT could be interesting....

 

[mayoclinic]

My question would be are the first round picks for 2010 and 2011 or can the team giving them up decide? I love wilfork but for 2 firsts and Mount Cody out there even younger and could develop into one hell of a NT could be interesting....

I'm not sure about the exact rules. Normally a team doesn't have 2 first round picks in the year the FA is signed, so I assume it's for consecutive years (e.g., the Broncos sign Wilfork and we get their 1st round picks in 2010 and 2011). I'm not sure what would happen in a team like SF signed Wilfork, and has 2 first round picks in 2010. I'm also not sure what would happen if a team had no 2010 1st round pick, or if a team had no pick of it's own but another team's 1st round pick (like Denver).

The only time I'm aware of that a team actually signed a franchised player and gave up 2 1st round picks was for .... Joey Galloway. Yes, THE Joey Galloway.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm not sure about the exact rules. Normally a team doesn't have 2 first round picks in the year the FA is signed, so I assume it's for consecutive years (e.g., the Broncos sign Wilfork and we get their 1st round picks in 2010 and 2011). I'm not sure what would happen in a team like SF signed Wilfork, and has 2 first round picks in 2010. I'm also not sure what would happen if a team had no 2010 1st round pick, or if a team had no pick of it's own but another team's 1st round pick (like Denver).

If I understand the rules correctly, it must be a first-round pick in each of the next two seasons, although it's possible a team could elect to use two first-rounders in the first year. Two first-rounders in the second year, though, is not allowed.

As far as a team such as Denver goes, the rule is clear: if that pick is higher than its original pick, the team can use it as compensation; if it's lower than the original pick, the team is SOL. [So, right now, Denver could use Chicago's first-rounder as franchise/RFA compensation if it chose, but Seattle cannot use Denver's.]

 

[mayoclinic]

If I understand the rules correctly, it must be a first-round pick in each of the next two seasons, although it's possible a team could elect to use two first-rounders in the first year. Two first-rounders in the second year, though, is not allowed.

As far as a team such as Denver goes, the rule is clear: if that pick is higher than its original pick, the team can use it as compensation; if it's lower than the original pick, the team is SOL. [So, right now, Denver could use Chicago's first-rounder as franchise/RFA compensation if it chose, but Seattle cannot use Denver's.]

Thanks for the clarification. So, if I understand you correctly, a team like Carolina which has no #1 pick in 2010 would be prohibited from trying to sign a franchised player to a long term offer sheet, since they cannot meet the required compensation if the current team declines to match.

I must say, much as I am a big fan of Wilfork, if Josh McDaniels wants to sign him to a $60M deal and give up 2 firsts (their own 2011 plus the 2010 pick which they have from Chicago this year, which will likely be in the 10-13 range; they have no 1st of their own this year since it belongs to Seattle), I'd jump at the chance. We could then do the following:

1. Draft ILB Rolando McClain with the 1st round pick from Denver/Chicago.
2. Draft DT Terrence Cody with our own 1st round pick (possibly requiring a trade up), or DT Dan Williams from Tennessee.
3. Use our 3 third round picks on a DE/OLB, an OL, and a 3-4 DE. Depending on how the chips fell we could end up with could end up with something like the following (assuming we pick in the range specified in the OP):

1(10) Rolando McClain, ILB
1(21) Terrence Cody/Dan Williams, DT
2(42) Allen Bailey, Jared Odrick or Arthur Jones, DE
2(50) Greg Romeus, Jeremy Beal or Austen Lane, DE/OLB
2(52) Gabe Carimi or Vladimir Ducasse, OT/OG

In this scenario (ignoring the Matt Light trade for the moment), if we managed to sign a DE/OLB FA such as Shawn Merriman or Aaron Kampman then we would end up with something like the following:

OT(4): Vollmer, Light, Kaczur, Levoir
OG/C(5): Mankins, Koppen, Carimi/Ducasse, Ohrnberger, Connolly

DL(6): Warren, Cody/Wiliams, Wright, Bailey/Odrick/Jones, Pryor, Brace
DE/OLB(4): Merriman/Kampman, Romeus/Beal/Lane, Ninkovich, Crable
ILB(5): Mayo, McClain, Guyton, McKenzie, Alexander

In addition, we would have 3 1st round picks in 2011: Oakland's, Denver's, and our own, plus a 2nd round pick. We could potentially trade up and look at targetting something like:

- DE/OLB Robert Quinn, North Carolina: 6'5" 265# freak with 4.51 speed and a 2 time state wrestling champ. Described by his coach as having "no ego".
- CB Patrick Peterson: 6'1" 203" playmaker who may be the best CB prospect since Champ Bailey.
- One of the "big 5" WRs: AJ Green, Julio Jones, Michael Floyd, Jonathan Baldwin, and DeAndre Brown.

Much as I hope we keep Wilfork, I wouldn't shed any tears at that outcome.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Thanks for the clarification. So, if I understand you correctly, a team like Carolina which has no #1 pick in 2010 would be prohibited from trying to sign a franchised player to a long term offer sheet, since they cannot meet the required compensation if the current team declines to match.

I must say, much as I am a big fan of Wilfork, if Josh McDaniels wants to sign him to a $60M deal and give up 2 firsts (their own 2011 plus the 2010 pick which they have from Chicago this year, which will likely be in the 10-13 range; they have no 1st of their own this year since it belongs to Seattle), I'd jump at the chance. We could then do the following:

1. Draft ILB Rolando McClain with the 1st round pick from Denver/Chicago.
2. Draft DT Terrence Cody with our own 1st round pick (possibly requiring a trade up), or DT Dan Williams from Tennessee.
3. Use our 3 third round picks on a DE/OLB, an OL, and a 3-4 DE. Depending on how the chips fell we could end up with could end up with something like the following (assuming we pick in the range specified in the OP):

1(10) Rolando McClain, ILB
1(21) Terrence Cody/Dan Williams, DT
2(42) Allen Bailey, Jared Odrick or Arthur Jones, DE
2(50) Greg Romeus, Jeremy Beal or Austen Lane, DE/OLB
2(52) Gabe Carimi or Vladimir Ducasse, OT/OG

In this scenario (ignoring the Matt Light trade for the moment), if we managed to sign a DE/OLB FA such as Shawn Merriman or Aaron Kampman then we would end up with something like the following:

OT(4): Vollmer, Light, Kaczur, Levoir
OG/C(5): Mankins, Koppen, Carimi/Ducasse, Ohrnberger, Connolly

DL(6): Warren, Cody/Wiliams, Wright, Bailey/Odrick/Jones, Pryor, Brace
DE/OLB(4): Merriman/Kampman, Romeus/Beal/Lane, Ninkovich, Crable
ILB(5): Mayo, McClain, Guyton, McKenzie, Alexander

In addition, we would have 3 1st round picks in 2011: Oakland's, Denver's, and our own, plus a 2nd round pick. We could potentially trade up and look at targetting something like:

- DE/OLB Robert Quinn, North Carolina: 6'5" 265# freak with 4.51 speed and a 2 time state wrestling champ. Described by his coach as having "no ego".
- CB Patrick Peterson: 6'1" 203" playmaker who may be the best CB prospect since Champ Bailey.
- One of the "big 5" WRs: AJ Green, Julio Jones, Michael Floyd, Jonathan Baldwin, and DeAndre Brown.

Much as I hope we keep Wilfork, I wouldn't shed any tears at that outcome.

I would be thrilled with this mock, especially round 1.

 

[mayoclinic]

I would be thrilled with this mock, especially round 1.

Thought you'd enjoy that one.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Guys, Guys, keep the Rolando talk on the DL. If BB sees this we'll end up trading back and picking up that try hard smart player with half the athletic ability but twice the brains, great for when were playing the Bills, not so great against the Saints.