How worried are you about not having Mankins?

[Deus Irae]

There you go.

We just picked up a guy who started 42 of 48 games with the Bengals. Admittedly Browns fans thought little of him, but it's just not that hard to pick up a competent guard for nothing, we've done it through our history.

To ask you the same question I asked Mgteich:

Are you referring to the guard who was cut by the Chiefs last season, signed by the Chargers but did not play a game last season, non-tendered by the Chargers, signed earlier this year by the Browns, and then cut by the Browns? Is that the player we should all feel Dante will whip into shape by week one?

 

[Patjew]

Coming into this thread late, as usual. I'm pretty worried. I really hope he signs and shows up. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't be worried about our best and most resilient OLman not showing.

 

[Kontradiction]

Coming into this thread late, as usual. I'm pretty worried. I really hope he signs and shows up. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't be worried about our best and most resilient OLman not showing.

So you think they should pay the beast?

 

[BradyFTW!]

To ask you the same question I asked Mgteich:

Are you referring to the guard who was cut by the Chiefs last season, signed by the Chargers but did not play a game last season, non-tendered by the Chargers, signed earlier this year by the Browns, and then cut by the Browns? Is that the player we should all feel Dante will whip into shape by week one?

I'll frame it up another way: if we try to run behind this guy, don't be surprised when it doesn't work. If we rely on him for non-garbage playing time, I'll be worrying quite a bit.

 

[spacecrime]

Anyone who actually things not having Mankins is not a big deal either has no clue about football, is in denial or just dumb (though I don't want to be rude). How can you say losing your best guard and having nobody anywhere near his ability to replace him is not a bid deal or not a minus?

Sadly, you are mistaken. You are confusing Fantasy Football with real football. In fantasy football, what you say is true. In real football, loss of one player does not mean the team does not play better.

In 2001, we had a team that went 5-11 the prvious year. We lost the best left tackle we ever had, our only good WR played a few games and was suspended, our franchise QB went down in game 2.

So what happened? We won the superbowl. What would you have said if you were a fan back then?

In 2003, when we lost Milloy, fans here panicked just as you are. We lost the 'heart and soul' of our defense. Some predicted an 0-16 season. What happened? We won the superbowl.

We may miss him, we may not, but to say that only people who think it is a calamity know anything about football is wrong. Quite the opposite.

Also, he's a flippin' GUARD. The least important position on the field except FB and LS. Every other position is more important to have a quality player than guard.

 

[Ring 6]

I wouldn't call Connolly one of those guys as of today. Kaczur I have faith in when it comes to playing guard. Playing on the interior line will nullify his weaknesses that we've seen at tackle. I wouldn't be worried at all to see him in there for any significant length of time up to, and including, the entire season. Based on what I've seen of Connolly, I cannot say the same for him.

That wasnt what I was saying.
I was saying the track record of pretty much every time we have put an 'unlnown' OL on the field it has worked seems like a valid reason to not worry too much about what happens if the young players on the OL are needed.
Of course we cant really form much of an opinion of them because we havent seen them, but 10 years of seeing what the unknown guy looks like when he hits the field at OL eases my concern.

 

[RayClay]

To ask you the same question I asked Mgteich:

Are you referring to the guard who was cut by the Chiefs last season, signed by the Chargers but did not play a game last season, non-tendered by the Chargers, signed earlier this year by the Browns, and then cut by the Browns? Is that the player we should all feel Dante will whip into shape by week one?

Yeah, I believe I called him the savior, the solution to all our problems and ten times the players Mankins is, didn't I?

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, I believe I called him the savior, the solution to all our problems and ten times the players Mankins is, didn't I?

"We just picked up a guy who started 42 of 48 games with the Bengals. Admittedly Browns fans thought little of him, but it's just not that hard to pick up a competent guard for nothing, we've done it through our history."

 

[Patjew]

So you think they should pay the beast?

No, not pay him "anything". I think we should "negotiate with and settle on a number that works for both sides for this year and then work on an extension with the beast".

 

[RayClay]

"We just picked up a guy who started 42 of 48 games with the Bengals. Admittedly Browns fans thought little of him, but it's just not that hard to pick up a competent guard for nothing, we've done it through our history."

OK. So I post he started 42 of 48 games, and you're rebuttal is he started 42 of 48 games.

Pretty hard for me to argue with that logic.

You don't want me to list every guard we've picked up for nothing in the last ten years, do you? How about just the starters?

I'm assuming you're also asserting that all three guards we've drafted in the last two years are useless also, because you've worked them all out?

 

[Ring 6]

No, not pay him "anything". I think we should "negotiate with and settle on a number that works for both sides for this year and then work on an extension with the beast".

Do you think they should be aggressively negotiating with him, or do you think that leaving the ball in his court (he doesnt have much leverage, at least leverage that isnt very costly to him) is the best way to get it resolved?
If the Pats are at or near their highest offer, and Mankins is 'insulted' is the best move to call his bluff and wait him out, considering that the negotiations would be fruitless?

 

[Kontradiction]

That wasnt what I was saying.
I was saying the track record of pretty much every time we have put an 'unlnown' OL on the field it has worked seems like a valid reason to not worry too much about what happens if the young players on the OL are needed.
Of course we cant really form much of an opinion of them because we havent seen them, but 10 years of seeing what the unknown guy looks like when he hits the field at OL eases my concern.

Our track record is about as irrelevant as it gets right now. On top of that, track record could always change. For instance - before last year we had a successful track record of letting aging veterans go and having guys come in behind them and do a more than admirable job at replacing them. Our track record prior to that dictated so. After last year, that changed. Track records don't really mean much in this case... especially when you're looking at Dan Connolly seeing any sort of significant time in the line-up.

 

[Ring 6]

Our track record is about as irrelevant as it gets right now. On top of that, track record could always change. For instance - before last year we had a successful track record of letting aging veterans go and having guys come in behind them and do a more than admirable job at replacing them. Our track record prior to that dictated so. After last year, that changed. Track records don't really mean much in this case... especially when you're looking at Dan Connolly seeing any sort of significant time in the line-up.

OK. I was thinking that the coach who has coached players up for 10 years could probably still do it.
I'll count you as not agreeing.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK. So I post he started 42 of 48 games, and you're rebuttal is he started 42 of 48 games.

Pretty hard for me to argue with that logic.

You don't want me to list every guard we've picked up for nothing in the last ten years, do you? How about just the starters?...

It wasn't a rebuttal to your "42 of 48". It was a response to your snarky post about

Yeah, I believe I called him the savior, the solution to all our problems and ten times the players Mankins is, didn't I

You were pimping a guy's starts on the Bengals from 2 years ago when he's been cut loose, in one form or another, 4 times since then.

After all, you were the one with the "street FA guard" comment. I'm the one who's hoping Kaczur gets back to get enough reps to make a smooth transition.

...I'm assuming you're also asserting that all three guards we've drafted in the last two years are useless also, because you've worked them all out?

Well, the fact that Connolly played, badly, last year and was ahead of others doesn't bode well. This isn't rocket science, after all.

 

[Ring 6]

Our track record is about as irrelevant as it gets right now. On top of that, track record could always change. For instance - before last year we had a successful track record of letting aging veterans go and having guys come in behind them and do a more than admirable job at replacing them. Our track record prior to that dictated so. After last year, that changed. Track records don't really mean much in this case... especially when you're looking at Dan Connolly seeing any sort of significant time in the line-up.

Connolly played almost all of 5 games last season, and we didnt suffer much for it. Statistically the running game was about the same, sacks totals were about the same and we scored about 3 ppg less. Not a dramatic dropoff for a backup being in there.
I'm fine with Connolly as a backup G. BB appears to be too.

 

[Patjew]

Do you think they should be aggressively negotiating with him, or do you think that leaving the ball in his court (he doesnt have much leverage, at least leverage that isnt very costly to him) is the best way to get it resolved?
If the Pats are at or near their highest offer, and Mankins is 'insulted' is the best move to call his bluff and wait him out, considering that the negotiations would be fruitless?

If it was me dealing with a disgruntled employee in a similar situation, I would call his bluff and wait him out. I've done it before. I'm kind of doing it today, actually. I might reach out to him (his agent) to keep him apprised of deadlines, etc and to avoid the lines of communication dying altogether, but that's about it.

 

[RayClay]

My point is, Mankins wants a lot of money, plus he's insulted the owner. Does he play the most crucial and difficult position to fill? Sorry, he doesn't. We just picked up a 29 year old guy with 42 starts that'll cost us nothing. He might suck, but right now has better credentials than every guard who started during our Super Bowls except Compton


We drafted three Gs or C/G. We have two guys who have been around the program 2-3 years and can and have Played or started.

If you guys are going to jump off the ledge while throwing money at a guard, be my guest. Last i heard was his agent back tracking and not a word from the Patriots. His agent will come back with his tail between his legs and will be lucky to get the same contract he turned down IMO.

 

[woolster22]

Sadly, you are mistaken. You are confusing Fantasy Football with real football. In fantasy football, what you say is true. In real football, loss of one player does not mean the team does not play better.

In 2001, we had a team that went 5-11 the prvious year. We lost the best left tackle we ever had, our only good WR played a few games and was suspended, our franchise QB went down in game 2.

So what happened? We won the superbowl. What would you have said if you were a fan back then?

In 2003, when we lost Milloy, fans here panicked just as you are. We lost the 'heart and soul' of our defense. Some predicted an 0-16 season. What happened? We won the superbowl.

We may miss him, we may not, but to say that only people who think it is a calamity know anything about football is wrong. Quite the opposite.

Also, he's a flippin' GUARD. The least important position on the field except FB and LS. Every other position is more important to have a quality player than guard.

Whats that saying...something about battles being won in the trenches...

Games are won from the inside out. OL v Front 7. Thats how "the best team ever" was embarassed by the New York Football Giants in 07. I'll put any one of the 5 OL spots above RB/TE/WR2-4 any day. Sure a top QB is needed, but what good is he if he has no time to throw? What good is Randy/Wes if Brady can't take more than 2 steps before being forced to move in the pocket. Why else have we been clammoring for that vaunted rush OLB for the last few years? The OL is in charge of protecting the most valuable part of any good football team, the QB. I bet Tf'nB is a tad more worried than many of you are letting on, though he won't tell many people... Interior D-Lineman may be "slow," but they are still NFL athletes. They will get to the QB quickly if unattended. Kaczur **may** be a competent replacement, but he is not the answer. Bruschi has given a few reasons why on ESPN, and its been well quoted here as well. Those long arms are negated inside, and the battle drastically changes. Instead of dealing with Mathis, he is looking at MLB's and the Wilfork's of the league, who will get underneath and drive him back. They don't need to put a body on 12 to disrupt the play, but simply put Kaczurs (taller than most OG's, yet compounding the issue) body into TB's sight;throwing lanes to disrupt, let alone pushing into his lap. This can easily be a problem for us.

What was it BB couldn't stand Drew for? O yeah, a little bit of pressure up the middle and he's all done. you think Tom Brady on a reconstructed knee is much better than Drew in the late 90's early ots? He's pretty damn immobile himself, and now he's got one blow below his waste. Leg injuries eventually caught up to Marino...why not our GOAT?

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

If only BB had signed Julius Peppers, we wouldnt be worried at all

If Kaczur is healthy, they'll be ok without Mankins. Its not the end of the world. Kaczur is a better o-lineman than people are willing to admit. Sure, i'd rather see Mankins out there, but not for 8 mil per. I'd be more concerned with Neal being healthy all season then worrying about Mankins. Besides, this is all pointless. Mankins will be playing in week 1.

 

[Kontradiction]

Connolly played almost all of 5 games last season, and we didnt suffer much for it. Statistically the running game was about the same, sacks totals were about the same and we scored about 3 ppg less. Not a dramatic dropoff for a backup being in there.
I'm fine with Connolly as a backup G. BB appears to be too.

The second half of the Colts game, Randy Starks, and Brady's body say "hi". You really can't honestly think that Connolly did an admirable job...