Vince Wilfork...on WEEI...

[mgteich]

Yes, this is business. Wilfork will get paid for the entire season if he signs the franchise at the last minute and shows up for practice on the Wednesday before Game 1. Before signing the tag, he is under no obligations to the patriots whatever.

As was the case with Samuel, the patriots can probably avoid this disruption of the defense by agreeing not to franchise Wilfork again.

Wilfork MIGHT be willing to give up three game paychecks and still get his money for the rest of the eyar, but I don't expect that.

The tag was negotiated into the CBA. The owners capitulated to player demands for free agency and in turn the players gave the franchise tag. It's nothing more than a tool a team can use to retain a good player. This is strictly business. Don't fall for Vince playing on public sentiment. Right now he just wants as much money as he can get and a long term contract. Also, what's a team supposed to do? Franchise a disgruntled player that sucks? The tag will always be used for good players and good players are generally fan favorites.

Any player getting franchised now faces the possibility of being out of work in 2011 and any team signing that long term contract faces having to pay a large 2nd year salary and no football. This is a tough situation and both players and teams have to be careful. A lot of teams will use the tag this year and a lot of players will act like they just got shot. It's all business. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's going to be a doozy.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

wilfork doesn't have to play for a contract.......he'll get one for 2011 regardless of whether he sits the first part of the season or not.

They can Franchise him again if he's an ass about it. And he does have to play well or he will get less money on the open market if he tanks.

whatever......some of you obviously think the front office is always right in these matters. I do not.

Not true. I can name a ton of things I would have done differently. But this situation doesn't concern me. With significant players we always either get the first Franchised year (Samuel) on the field from them or trade them for a #1 pick (Cassel, Seymour, Bledsoe, Branch). I know the trades were all varying situations (and Cassel was just outside round 1) but the concept is there.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

As was the case with Samuel, the patriots can probably avoid this disruption of the defense by agreeing not to franchise Wilfork again.

I have no doubt at all Wilfork would agree to that. I wouldn't do it again. Sign him long term or trade him for good value now. One year isn't worth the trade value IMO.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with your analysis.

They can Franchise him again if he's an ass about it. And he does have to play well or he will get less money on the open market if he tanks.


Not true. I can name a ton of things I would have done differently. But this situation doesn't concern me. With significant players we always either get the first Franchised year (Samuel) on the field from them or trade them for a #1 pick (Cassel, Seymour, Bledsoe, Branch). I know the trades were all varying situations (and Cassel was just outside round 1) but the concept is there.

 

[Rob0729]

that makes no sense..........your references to past history are a joke......are you telling me the pats have the guys on defense that if they get 3 guys (like warren,washington,harrison in 2003) that the pats will have a #1 defense? oh yeah, because we have the LB's, right? your analogy is a joke

at the end of the 2002 season, the pats had pleasant/seymour/hamilton on their DL........right now, they have warren/pryor/wright......in 2002 at LB, they had vrabel,bruschi,phifer,mcginest......right now, the pats have crable,mckenzie,mayo,thomas.......do you still want to go on with your comparison to 2002?

2002 has nothing in common with the current moment.

First of all, I didn't realize the Pats only intended on field a defense next year with no offense or special teams. Good to know that. Yes, if the Pats intend on leaving Brady and the rest of the offense in the lockerroom every game, they are going to decline.

Second of all, the league has changed since 2002. Great defenses with average offenses like the Pats had in 2003 (and I am being a tad generous calling it an average offense) aren't going to get you to go 14-2 and win the Super Bowl anymore. The Pats don't need a #1 defense to be elite anymore. Neither team playing in this year's Super Bowl had it. At least one of the competitors in the previous two had it either. The Giants in 2007 didn't have an elite defense either, just a good one with a great d-line, but a suspect secondary. The Pats went 18-1 with an average defense that was helped out by an offense that forced teams to become one dimensional by halftime.

Third, the Pats replaced three of their four secondary starters from 2002 to 2003. Pleasant fanned out in 2003. Their biggest free agent acquistion to that point suffered a season ending injury the second week of the season. The Pats added Ted Washington the last minute because they had no NT. Pleasant was spent by 2003. The Pats started Eugene Wilson at safety as a rookie who had never played the position. Ted Johnson left the team because he was told he was going to be a healthy scratch in a game because he wasn't performing. Let's not forget all the upheaval that happened that year. The Pats may or may not need to replicate some or any of that magic.

Fourth, one bad year (and we are talking a 10-6 season) does not indicate a decline. I throw out 2008 because that was Brady-less. Even so, they went 11-6 and by all rights should have made the playoffs and were peaking at the right time.

2002 does have things in common to this year. No they aren't the same exact situation, but there were a lot of problems with the 2002 team on both sides of the ball and the Pats made move to fix them. In 2007, the Pats did the same thing (and the LBing corp of 2003 was gone at that point). Belichick has had a history over the last decade of addressing the teams biggest weaknesses during the offseason and rebuilding this team to be a contender. At some point that will end, but until I see several years of a trend of it (again with Brady at the helm) I think Belichick has earned our giving him the benefit of the doubt.


If you want to jump ship the first sign of trouble like a rat, by all means, be my guest. Just don't jump on the bandwagon again if and when Belichick rights the ship.

 

[mgcolby]

I have no doubt at all Wilfork would agree to that. I wouldn't do it again. Sign him long term or trade him for good value now. One year isn't worth the trade value IMO.

I just have a hard time figuring out who they would trade him to. I can't see them trading him to the teams who need a NT the most, SD and Pit as they are contending rivals. Dallas has no use for him, SF seems set as does Cleveland. Jets don't need him and they are obviously not going to trade him within the division, which rules out Miami as well. I don't think he is quick enough to be a 4-3 tackle, maybe if a team is just looking for big boy to fill space to free up the end, maybe but that is a lot of dough and a high draft pick just for that. So that leaves Denver or KC? Do they really bid against each other for the right to get Wilfork and give up their 1st rounder?

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I just have a hard time figuring out who they would trade him to. I can't see them trading him to the teams who need a DT the most SD, Pit as they are contending rivals. Dallas has no use for him, SF seems set as does Cleveland. Jets don't need him and they are obviously not going to trade him within the division, which rules out Miami. I don't think he is fast enough to be a 4-3 tackle. So that leaves Denver or KC? Do they really bid against each other for the right to get Wilfork and give up a their 1st rounder?

KC and Denver is a good start. I think he could be a good 4-3 DT myself. And although Wilfork <> Bledsoe, don't put it past Belichick to trade in the division if he gets value.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

They can Franchise him again if he's an ass about it. And he does have to play well or he will get less money on the open market if he tanks.

if that's how the pats think they should go about things in order to field the best team, they they can knock themselves out....but if you don't think someone out there won't back up the truck after a season of wilfork coming in late and not being his 100%, then you're mistaken. keeping a competitive team is not about getting one more year out of your best defensive player (and the dropoff is huge to the next one) before he walks.....never has been.

Not true. I can name a ton of things I would have done differently. But this situation doesn't concern me. With significant players we always either get the first Franchised year (Samuel) on the field from them or trade them for a #1 pick (Cassel, Seymour, Bledsoe, Branch). I know the trades were all varying situations (and Cassel was just outside round 1) but the concept is there.

was the concept there with asante samuel? because that's the only valid comparison......all your other comparisons are irrelevant.

so yeah......at best the pats will get 1 more year out of wilfork and that it.

considering the pats are already in shape to be replacing most of the front 7 already, then why not wilfork, too? great logic

maybe BB got bored with trying to win without decent assistants.....maybe he's' going to try to do it without decent players now

 

[Frezo]

Yes, this is business. Wilfork will get paid for the entire season if he signs the franchise at the last minute and shows up for practice on the Wednesday before Game 1. Before signing the tag, he is under no obligations to the patriots whatever.

As was the case with Samuel, the patriots can probably avoid this disruption of the defense by agreeing not to franchise Wilfork again.

Wilfork MIGHT be willing to give up three game paychecks and still get his money for the rest of the eyar, but I don't expect that.

I don't expect it either. It's stupid business to toss money down the drain especially when NFL careers are comparatively short. Certainly Vince is smart enough to understand the value of a million dollars. Then there's always Mrs. Wilfork who would be watching hubby sitting on the couch for 4 weeks while a million dollars floats out the window. NOT GONNA HAPPEN

 

[mgcolby]

KC and Denver is a good start. I think he could be a good 4-3 DT myself. And although Wilfork <> Bledsoe, don't put it past Belichick to trade in the division if he gets value.

Well I actually forgot about Buffalo hiring Gailey, I wonder if he decides to go 3-4.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't expect it either. It's stupid business to toss money down the drain especially when NFL careers are comparatively short. Certainly Vince is smart enough to understand the value of a million dollars. Then there's always Mrs. Wilfork who would be watching hubby sitting on the couch for 4 weeks while a million dollars floats out the window. NOT GONNA HAPPEN

That is the one thing that scares me about Wilfork being franchised. I have no doubts he will be in uniform week one, but will his 2009 uniform fit him. The last thing you want is a fat guy on the d-line sitting out offseason training, minicamps, training camp, and part of the preseason. That is the ONLY thing that really scares me about Wilfork being franchised without a deal.

 

[Frezo]

That is the one thing that scares me about Wilfork being franchised. I have no doubts he will be in uniform week one, but will his 2009 uniform fit him. The last thing you want is a fat guy on the d-line sitting out offseason training, minicamps, training camp, and part of the preseason. That is the ONLY thing that really scares me about Wilfork being franchised without a deal.

That's an interesting perspective. Maybe the Pats can supply him with enough Viagra to keep him in an erect and active position for 3 months.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

First of all, I didn't realize the Pats only intended on field a defense next year with no offense or special teams. Good to know that. Yes, if the Pats intend on leaving Brady and the rest of the offense in the lockerroom every game, they are going to decline.

errrr.....ok.......you do realize the only time the pats have won anything is when they have had a top defense....they do not have that now......and now they are going to lose their best defensive player..........they have won SB's with offenses that were nowhere near the top in the league....not so with the defense

Second of all, the league has changed since 2002. Great defenses with average offenses like the Pats had in 2003 (and I am being a tad generous calling it an average offense) aren't going to get you to go 14-2 and win the Super Bowl anymore. The Pats don't need a #1 defense to be elite anymore. Neither team playing in this year's Super Bowl had it. At least one of the competitors in the previous two had it either. The Giants in 2007 didn't have an elite defense either, just a good one with a great d-line, but a suspect secondary. The Pats went 18-1 with an average defense that was helped out by an offense that forced teams to become one dimensional by halftime.

so when did this big change come about???? 2008, the #1 defense won the SB, as with most year where one of the top defenses. this year is an anomaly just like 2006 was.....your logic is faulty

Third, the Pats replaced three of their four secondary starters from 2002 to 2003. Pleasant fanned out in 2003. Their biggest free agent acquistion to that point suffered a season ending injury the second week of the season. The Pats added Ted Washington the last minute because they had no NT. Pleasant was spent by 2003. The Pats started Eugene Wilson at safety as a rookie who had never played the position. Ted Johnson left the team because he was told he was going to be a healthy scratch in a game because he wasn't performing. Let's not forget all the upheaval that happened that year. The Pats may or may not need to replicate some or any of that magic.

bobby hamilton was the starter opposite seymour.....pleasant was a back up.......you are totally ignoring the most important thing about the defense....the LB's.....at this time before the 2003 season, they had vrabel,bruschi,phifer,mcginest.......there is no chance they can come close to reproducing that this year...none at all

Fourth, one bad year (and we are talking a 10-6 season) does not indicate a decline. I throw out 2008 because that was Brady-less. Even so, they went 11-6 and by all rights should have made the playoffs and were peaking at the right time.

doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the roster and see it.......you can choose to ignore it if you wish

2002 does have things in common to this year. No they aren't the same exact situation, but there were a lot of problems with the 2002 team on both sides of the ball and the Pats made move to fix them. In 2007, the Pats did the same thing (and the LBing corp of 2003 was gone at that point). Belichick has had a history over the last decade of addressing the teams biggest weaknesses during the offseason and rebuilding this team to be a contender. At some point that will end, but until I see several years of a trend of it (again with Brady at the helm) I think Belichick has earned our giving him the benefit of the doubt.


If you want to jump ship the first sign of trouble like a rat, by all means, be my guest. Just don't jump on the bandwagon again if and when Belichick rights the ship.

eff you.....I've been a fan of this team a hell of alot longer than you have.....I just don't blind myself to reality the way you do.

I could call you a bandwagoner

 

[Rob0729]

errrr.....ok.......you do realize the only time the pats have won anything is when they have had a top defense....they do not have that now......and now they are going to lose their best defensive player..........they have won SB's with offenses that were nowhere near the top in the league....not so with the defense

The Pats were one play away from winning the Super Bowl in the 2007 season. The Pats defense was not the top defense that year. Just because David Tyree made a miracle catch or Brandon Meriweather dropped an easy INT doesn't exactly give a strong support of your argument especially since the Pats beat the Panthers in the Super Bowl despite their defense falling apart. Saying the Pats were one minute and a fluke play away from having the best season in league history proves that the Pats can't win the Super Bowl without an elite defense is ridiculous.

so when did this big change come about???? 2008, the #1 defense won the SB, as with most year where one of the top defenses. this year is an anomaly just like 2006 was.....your logic is faulty

It is one year out of the last five Super Bowls that the #1 defense won the Super Bowl. Neither team this year have it.

The Giants didn't have it in 2007. In 2007, the Giants were ranked 7th and 17th in points allowed. Both are worse than this year's Patriots' defense.

The Colts certainly didn't did have it in 2006 since they had the statitistically worst run defense in NFL history. Their defense was ranked 21st and 23rd on points allowed. Again, another defense worse than this year's Patriots defense.

In 2005, the Steelers didn't have the best defense either. They gave up 10 more yards per game and one less point per game than this year's Patriots.

Exactly how is my logic faulty. Because one year out of five, my logic is wrong?

bobby hamilton was the starter opposite seymour.....pleasant was a back up.......you are totally ignoring the most important thing about the defense....the LB's.....at this time before the 2003 season, they had vrabel,bruschi,phifer,mcginest.......there is no chance they can come close to reproducing that this year...none at all

Yeah, so. The 2003 offense was arguably the worst offense in the Brady era. Again, this league has changed since 2003 and it is a more offensive oriented league. The Pats' offense is better than the 2003 offense by a bunch and that means the 2010 defense doesn't have to be the same as the 2003 defense.

doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the roster and see it.......you can choose to ignore it if you wish

Again, your problem is you haven't caught up with the times. Defenses aren't as important as they used to be.

eff you.....I've been a fan of this team a hell of alot longer than you have.....I just don't blind myself to reality the way you do.

I could call you a bandwagoner

How do you know how long I have been a Patriots fan? Sorry, I guess I just understand the game a little better than you do, you seem to only want to follow the defense, but since the Pats last won a Super Bowl top defenses haven't been winning Super Bowls except for one year.

 

[zoostation]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

And Samuel and Wilfork were no Ty Law and Ted Washington at first either.

But let's not declare this an automatic franchise situation based on "tone of voice" during a phone interview.

Vince was a stud from the beginning.

 

[Deus Irae]

Wilfork's right about his 6 year deal.

Cry me a river. He didn't have to sign the damn thing. And I am right about the fact that his contract paid him very well because of the incentives he reached.

It doesn't change the fact that he's an idiot for thinking that the Franchise tag means that he's only considered an "OK" player.

Nothing you wrote had anything to do with what I said. But thanks for throwing up your comments...

Irony.....

 

[Miguel]

Ans his whining ab out the 6 year deal is pathetic also. Cry me a river, Vince. You got a good contract with that 6 year deal. You had more incentives in your deal than others had in theirs. And you made many of them.

Please prove the last two sentences.

 

[Miguel]

And I am right about the fact that his contract paid him very well because of the incentives he reached.

Please prove this.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

Vince was a stud from the beginning.

That's not true. Vince struggled his first year. His second year, the coaching staff determined that Vince had trouble seeing the formations and playing close to the line of scrimmage and had him move a half a yard off the ball. Once he did that, he emerged.

 

[Deus Irae]

Agreed - the same CBA that allows him free agency also allows the team to Franchise him for a hefty payday. Personally I'd like to see us trade him to one of the teams that needs a NT for a #1 this year and a usable player as I think we can get more value for the money than a dominant 2 down player.

I assume you realize that this makes no sense when referring to a 3-4 NT. Denver and Kansas City, to name two teams, certainly realize that.