The Trade - 8 Games Later

[patfanken]

I was against the trade at the time. We probably would have won at Miami with Mankins.

I thought this was a good post except for the above sentence. Unless Logan Mankins was willing to play DT that game, his absence WAS NOT the cause of the Pats loss. I think the more accurate absence or criticism for that game would have been that of Tommy Kelley. IMHO, HIS presence would have made a difference in that game. Don't forget that the Pats DID score 20 first half points in that game.

That loss was a bad one, but it was a collective loss with a lot of blame to spread around. People forget that Volmer wasn't playing at his best at the start of the season. We didn't know that Cannon wasn't able to process playing G. We didn't know that not keeping Kelley was a mistake, especially after the Siliga injury.. I think the heat took its toll in the 2nd half and was a bigger factor than most realize. Brady certainly wasn't close to the QB we've seen the past month. Gronk was a shadow of what we saw yesterday, etc, etc.

IMHO it's both simplistic and lazy to say that the early losses at the start of the season would have been wins if Logan Mankins was still on the team. Besides its part of the beauty of the game itself that so rarely does the addition or subtraction of one player is the sole difference between winning or losing.

 

[obgod3]

OK I admit......I was ok with the trade....LOL

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Why?

In 9 seasons of Logan Mankins in New England, they have never won a game on that first Sunday in February.

I don't think Tampa is going to either this year.

I appreciate the humor, but all kidding aside, I think that we'll have a sense in January as to what contributed to the Pats success and what was a drag on their performance. My comment wasn't facetious; if it's clear that Wright gave TB the weapon he needed to complement Gronk, I'll have one view. If TB spends the month of December running for his life, I'll probably wish we still had Mankins.

 

[obgod3]

TB might spend his day running next sunday , but I still like the trade, dont think LM would matter one way or another.

 

[mgteich]

I don't think any of us understand us not keeping Kelly, given the cap situation. DT's get injured. Kelly was restructured to be a 1-year rent-a-player. Then Belichick decided that were just fine with Buchanan, Moore and Vellano. We certainly knew that there were injury situations at DT. I thought that, by now, it was clear to us all that keeping Kelly would have been prudent.

Perhaps it was lazy to think that we would have had even more point with Mankins against Miami. If not, then the trade should have been uncontroversial.

I thought this was a good post except for the above sentence. Unless Logan Mankins was willing to play DT that game, his absence WAS NOT the cause of the Pats loss. I think the more accurate absence or criticism for that game would have been that of Tommy Kelley. IMHO, HIS presence would have made a difference in that game. Don't forget that the Pats DID score 20 first half points in that game.

That loss was a bad one, but it was a collective loss with a lot of blame to spread around. People forget that Volmer wasn't playing at his best at the start of the season. We didn't know that Cannon wasn't able to process playing G. We didn't know that not keeping Kelley was a mistake, especially after the Siliga injury.. I think the heat took its toll in the 2nd half and was a bigger factor than most realize. Brady certainly wasn't close to the QB we've seen the past month. Gronk was a shadow of what we saw yesterday, etc, etc.

IMHO it's both simplistic and lazy to say that the early losses at the start of the season would have been wins if Logan Mankins was still on the team. Besides its part of the beauty of the game itself that so rarely does the addition or subtraction of one player is the sole difference between winning or losing.

 

[mgteich]

I think everyone included Wright in their analysis. I think some are over-exaggerating what his role is, such as you saying we have been seeking him for awhile. We had Hernandez up until last season. Wright has absolutely not turned us into a 2 TE base offense. He played 5 snaps in the first half yesterday.

We have been seeking a #2TE for awhile. Almost all of us wanted one in the draft. IMHO, we would have draft anyone that we thought was as good as Wright.

 

[mgteich]

My suggestion is that the weakened line might have cost a victory. I also indicated that this was not the case. The line without Mankins has worked out just fine.

What does this mean?

 

[Froob]

I want to see #1 what they do with that 7 million #2 how the OL holds up come playoff time before I call it a win just yet

Yep, I'd say it's winning at the moment but have to see how Mankins is playing at the end of the year in comparison to how the line is. The line was getting destroyed in the playoffs with Mankins so hopefully they hold up without. Seems like the line gets better every week. Need to keep guys healthy.

 

[Ring 6]

We have been seeking a #2TE for awhile. Almost all of us wanted one in the draft. IMHO, we would have draft anyone that we thought was as good as Wright.

By 'we' you mean posters?
The team wasn't seeking one before the 2013 season, because it had Hernandez.
The team has appeared to severely diminish the role Hernandez played and did not appear to be seeking a 2nd TE last year, during the offseason, or up until the end of camp when it fell into Wright, who now plays only a handful of snaps each game.
To make it out as if we traded Mankins because we just had to have a backup TE who would play a small role seems not to jive with the facts.

 

[Ring 6]

My suggestion is that the weakened line might have cost a victory. I also indicated that this was not the case. The line without Mankins has worked out just fine.

I'm confused. You posted that we may have lost a game but didn't? I don't understand.

 

[mgteich]

Cannon was one of the 5 best OL on the team. As is often said here, you want to get the 5 best on the field. You cannot know how Cannon will play at G until you play him at G. Not so sure that Kline comment has any basis to it. I would be shocked if Fleming is behind Kline and Devey/Kline seems to be a week to week thing.

Yes, it has been often said here that we should put our best 5 OL's on the filed no matter what position they play.

THE FOUR TACKLES APPROACH
Our new coach tried your suggested strategy (top 5 regardless of position) by started four tackles. Yes, I understand the injury situation, but Kline was certainly available.

CANNON
So, the coach needed to START Cannon at LG to find out if he was qualified to play guard. He might have looked at the film of his coming in last year as a guard. He might have looked at all the practices in this entire offseason where he tested OL at various positions and considered Cannon's play at guard. And if Cannon was even going to be a backup OG during this season, he might have played a rep or two at OG during the preseason.

IMHO, it is not relevant if Cannon is almost as good as Vollmer at RT (which he is NOT). What is relevant is whether he is a better OG than Connolly, Wendell, Kline or even Devey.

FLEMING
You would be shocked if Fleming is behind Kline as an OG. I wouldn't be. I guess his injuries are much more serious than we think or he would have been active instead of Kline on Sunday (which might be the case).

KLINE
Why do I think that Kline is the backup over Devey. I don't know; perhaps because he was active and Devey was not. Perhaps, Devey will be active next week, or not.

BOTTOM LINE
We are in a pretty good situation if we have a solid 5 man OL, with FOUR players capable of being active on any day. In the end, that is the judgement that Belichick made when he let Mankins go. Belichick believed in Connolly and Wendell (much more than message board posters), and perhaps he believed in Cannon a bit more also, although many here had Cannon starting at RG.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think any of us understand us not keeping Kelly, given the cap situation. DT's get injured. Kelly was restructured to be a 1-year rent-a-player. Then Belichick decided that were just fine with Buchanan, Moore and Vellano. We certainly knew that there were injury situations at DT. I thought that, by now, it was clear to us all that keeping Kelly would have been prudent.

Perhaps it was lazy to think that we would have had even more point with Mankins against Miami. If not, then the trade should have been uncontroversial.

I'm pretty sure Tommy Kelly lost his job in camp. Could he have been kept as a sulking end of the bench veteran who would only play if we had injuries? Sure, but whats the point?
Wilfork, Siliga, Chris Jones, and Easley were all going to play ahead of him, and there were 2 spots for those players to fill. It appears BB also saw an opportunity to fill in with trying out young DTs and has found Walker, who I certainly prefer to Kelly at this stage of their careers.

 

[mgteich]

By 'we' you mean posters?
The team wasn't seeking one before the 2013 season, because it had Hernandez.
The team has appeared to severely diminish the role Hernandez played and did not appear to be seeking a 2nd TE last year, during the offseason, or up until the end of camp when it fell into Wright, who now plays only a handful of snaps each game.
To make it out as if we traded Mankins because we just had to have a backup TE who would play a small role seems not to jive with the facts.

To suggest that the team has not been searching for a backup TE since the day Hernandez was cut does not jive with the facts. Certainly, Belichick had SOME interest in finding a TE in the past offseason or do you think that Belichick was all set when Hooman was re-signed? That would have been truly incredible since no one was sure if Gronkowski would even be ready to start the season, and at what level.

 

[mgteich]

I'm pretty sure Tommy Kelly lost his job in camp. Could he have been kept as a sulking end of the bench veteran who would only play if we had injuries? Sure, but whats the point?
Wilfork, Siliga, Chris Jones, and Easley were all going to play ahead of him, and there were 2 spots for those players to fill. It appears BB also saw an opportunity to fill in with trying out young DTs and has found Walker, who I certainly prefer to Kelly at this stage of their careers.

Belichick preferred Vellano to Kelly, not Walker. Walker wasn't signed until after Siliga was gone (do I have my dates wrong.

But no, that is NOT the point. I would have preferred to have 9-10 DL's, including projects like Moore. There was room for Kelly as a backup unless you are one who believes in the necessity of carrying 6 safeties. And yes, there was room to pick up Walker to replace Siliga (no roster total effect).

BUT, you could certainly be right that Belichick just didn't want Kelly around, and preferred having Vellano available on the 53 or the Practice Squad to Kelly on the 53.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, it has been often said here that we should put our best 5 OL's on the filed no matter what position they play.

THE FOUR TACKLES APPROACH
Our new coach tried your suggested strategy (top 5 regardless of position) by started four tackles. Yes, I understand the injury situation, but Kline was certainly available.

4 tackles?

CANNON
So, the coach needed to START Cannon at LG to find out if he was qualified to play guard. He might have looked at the film of his coming in last year as a guard. He might have looked at all the practices in this entire offseason where he tested OL at various positions and considered Cannon's play at guard. And if Cannon was even going to be a backup OG during this season, he might have played a rep or two at OG during the preseason.

I'm sorry, maybe he should have called you because you seem to have been able to evaluate him when BB couldn't.

IMHO, it is not relevant if Cannon is almost as good as Vollmer at RT (which he is NOT). What is relevant is whether he is a better OG than Connolly, Wendell, Kline or even Devey.

I don't understand what that means. BB felt he was the best option to start at G week 1.

FLEMING
You would be shocked if Fleming is behind Kline as an OG. I wouldn't be. I guess his injuries are much more serious than we think or he would have been active instead of Kline on Sunday (which might be the case).

He has been inactive due to injury ever since starting ahead of Kline, who has been inactive most of the season.

KLINE
Why do I think that Kline is the backup over Devey. I don't know; perhaps because he was active and Devey was not. Perhaps, Devey will be active next week, or not.

Exactly, there is no clear division between these two. Devey has been ahead of him most of the season, but was inactive yesterday. We can only speculate what went into that decision.

BOTTOM LINE
We are in a pretty good situation if we have a solid 5 man OL, with FOUR players capable of being active on any day. In the end, that is the judgement that Belichick made when he let Mankins go. Belichick believed in Connolly and Wendell (much more than message board posters), and perhaps he believed in Cannon a bit more also, although many here had Cannon starting at RG.

I think you had to start the season with Cannon at G. It just is not that easy to predict how players will play, especially when they change positions. You seem to think BB was stupid and didn't see what a fan could easily. I disagree.
Frankly I think BB looked at it and felt out of Connolly, Wendell, Stork, Fleming, Cannon, Devey and Kline 3 would emerge as an effective interior OL, and probably knew there would be growing pains. To him that was enough to pull the trigger to save 7 mill and hopefully get something back in return that could help.

 

[Ring 6]

To suggest that the team has not been searching for a backup TE since the day Hernandez was cut does not jive with the facts. Certainly, Belichick had SOME interest in finding a TE in the past offseason or do you think that Belichick was all set when Hooman was re-signed? That would have been truly incredible since no one was sure if Gronkowski would even be ready to start the season, and at what level.

Well then show me all of those TEs that he pursued.

 

[Danger Zone]

I'm pretty sure Tommy Kelly lost his job in camp. Could he have been kept as a sulking end of the bench veteran who would only play if we had injuries? Sure, but whats the point?
Wilfork, Siliga, Chris Jones, and Easley were all going to play ahead of him, and there were 2 spots for those players to fill. It appears BB also saw an opportunity to fill in with trying out young DTs and has found Walker, who I certainly prefer to Kelly at this stage of their careers.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[mgteich]

Andy, be real!

How can Cannon be the best option at LG if he has never played LG. Why wouldn't he have been give reps at LG during the preseason.

What you are suggesting (and it seems rightly) is that Bleichick knew that Cannon was good enough to start at LG in place of Mankins, with no practice whatsoever.

Others can mark this on the calendar. I am not critical of the trade. I am STRONGLY critical of starting a backup RT at LG with no preparation.

 

[mgteich]

Well then show me all of those TEs that he pursued.

We have no information on who Belichick sought in free agency or the draft. You are suggesting that Belichick was fine with Hooman starting the season with no backup whatsoever if Gronk isn't ready. Perhaps, you are correct. Perhaps our WR's were considered so good that a ZERO TE offense was just fine.

 

[Ring 6]

Belichick preferred Vellano to Kelly, not Walker. Walker wasn't signed until after Siliga was gone (do I have my dates wrong.

You keep speaking like you know what BB is thinking.
Vellano was kept around because Chris Jones and Siliga were injured. Sure he preferred a young Vellano in the 'only play when everyone is hurt' role to a disgruntled and hobbled Kelly. I understand that and agree with it. Walker ultimately filled a spot that BB brought many young DTs into to try out. (the guy from GB, the guy from the Giants, Walker)

But no, that is NOT the point. I would have preferred to have 9-10 DL's, including projects like Moore. There was room for Kelly as a backup unless you are one who believes in the necessity of carrying 6 safeties. And yes, there was room to pick up Walker to replace Siliga (no roster total effect).

I think 100 times out of 100 BB will cut a veteran who is 5th on the 2 man DT depth chart and is disgruntled about it. Kelly was beaten out for the bulk of the playing time, and sure he may still be a better player than Vellano, but why keep a miserable guy around to complain he isn't playing for a role like that? Note that Kelly couldn't even not complain from 2000 miles away, so its pretty clear what kind of guy he is and how he would have handled his demotion. If this were Madden, you would be right.

BUT, you could certainly be right that Belichick just didn't want Kelly around, and preferred having Vellano available on the 53 or the Practice Squad to Kelly on the 53.

See my comments above, and of course that is the case for all of those reasons.