Bedard: let six free agents walk

[PatsWickedPissah]

I hate this article. There are many points to make here, but here are two questions. Who on the free agent market is better at running medium out routes than Lloyd? Why should they pay Woodhead when they have Vereen and Demps?

Because Woodhead has always come up big in big games?
Because Ben Vereen has had very few games to show he's consistent?
Because Demps has never, ever played an NFL game?

 

[Love The Drake]

First and foremost, the Pats have only $18 million in cap space. Your contracts total over $17 million and that is not including Adrian Wilson.

You say "restructure" the contracts of Brady, Mankins and Wilfork, but offer nothing on how they should be restructured to free up cap room.

What makes you think that the Cowboys are interested in Mallett for a high round pick?

How is it that you think that Fletcher is an adequate replacement for Spikes? Fletcher has landed on the IR each of the last 2 years. The breakdown of runs to passes by opponents was 415 to 594. Or 41.2% to 58.8%. So, over 40% of the plays were running plays. And the Pats were able to hold opponents UNDER 4 YPC. Spikes was a big reason for that.

Also if Spikes isn't needed by us, what makes you think that he'll garner 2 mid round picks in return?

These are very good questions and I know that their is a strong chance that None of these moves could occur. But a strong organization makes the hard moves early not late.
Wilfork has been nothing but a good soldier and veteran leader I think if Kraft and BB came to him and had a plan and could show him the framework of that he would play ball for the greater good of the team.
He is however the elder of the defensive line so its not out of the question.
As far as Mankins is concerned he has been injured quite a bit under performed when it matters the most and is ridiculously paid for a position which in my opinion wouldn't have a huge drop off with say a Donald Thomas or a Marcus Cannon taking those reps if needed.
Its almost impossible to cut or trade him so you talk to him like a man see where he wants this team to go

 

[Love The Drake]

Now as far as the Spikes and Mallett trade ideas.
Mallett is a Texas native had a great high school career there and has a cannon that their wideouts who are best at going deep can go get.
Patience is running thin on Romo and if you grabbed him to sit behind him as a contigency plan the fans would embrace Mallett if he could unseat Romo at some point and Jones would look like a tenuous only risking two thirds or Maybe even Mike Jenkins and a late pick.
As far as Spikes is concerned he would fit really well with a few teams moving to the 3-4 like the Saints, Eagles? A few mid round picks would be worth it or a player like Maclin?
I don't forsee Spikes with the Patriots for the long haul why not move him before he hits his contract year and get nothing for him?
Fletcher and a tarpanin and or a late round undrafted player could fill that role maybe we would lose a thumper in the run game but gain a better player defending tight ends or backs out the flat. Which has been killing us.
As far as a player such as Adrian Wilson he is a true professional a player who would go all out and deserves a Superbowl on his career.
So when I say rebuild Im not implying that we will take a step back quite the contrary my thoughts are these moves could change the dynamic of the roster free up future cap space bring a strong leader that Rodney and Willie say is missing from the lockerroom Wilson or Reed.
Just my thoughts and hopes right or wrong.

 

[cstjohn17]

An offseason to-do list for the New England Patriots - Sports - The Boston Globe

Bedard sums up his Patriots offseason plan with "let Welker, Lloyd, Talib, Donald Thomas, Chung and Vollmer walk in free agency. Re-sign Edelman, Arrington, Woodhead, Scott and Cole."

That is completely reasonable with the $18 million in cap space, but you can also keep Lloyd and sign one other free agent, if my calculations are close. I'd make a play for Welker after he tests the market if possible, and then re-sign Thomas. I'd let Talib, Vollmer and Chung go.

Other than the Lloyd, I agree with the approach. The cost of keeping the free agents is too high, similar production can be found for less money. The savings can be applied to pass defends (DE, CB, S, interior pass rushing DT)

 

[Deus Irae]

Other than the Lloyd, I agree with the approach. The cost of keeping the free agents is too high, similar production can be found for less money. The savings can be applied to pass defends (DE, CB, S, interior pass rushing DT)

Please list all the currently available (or listed as to be available) WRs who's production is similar to Welker's and will be a signing for less money.

 

[TomPatriot]

Could you please show everyone what Vereen and Demps have accomplished that make them better than Woodhead?

I can't. The point is not that they are more accomplished, but that the Pats are deeper in that area than many others. If some veterans can't be re-signed for the kind of money they want because you are paying say, Talib, it makes more sense not to re-sign someone who is a part-time player and plays at a position where you have depth.

Vereen looks ready to take this role. He played well against Houston in the playoffs. I'm not at practice everyday watching him, but his route running looks sharper to me and he's using his body better when he has to pass block.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I can't. The point is not that they are more accomplished, but that the Pats are deeper in that area than many others. If some veterans can't be re-signed for the kind of money they want because you are paying say, Talib, it makes more sense not to re-sign someone who is a part-time player and plays at a position where you have depth.

Vereen looks ready to take this role. He played well against Houston in the playoffs. I'm not at practice everyday watching him, but his route running looks sharper to me and he's using his body better when he has to pass block.

That's not irrational. Me, I have a hard time cutting a guy who has been Faulk like clutch in big games for a one game wonder. Faulk's performances were key in all SB playoff runs.

BTW I'm a homer who sees upside potential in Vereen & Demps. Potential is the word.

 

[Ring 6]

That's not irrational. Me, I have a hard time cutting a guy who has been Faulk like clutch in big games for a one game wonder. Faulk's performances were key in all SB playoff runs.

BTW I'm a homer who sees upside potential in Vereen & Demps. Potential is the word.

Woodhead hasn't made the clutch plays Faulk did though.

 

[TomPatriot]

Because Woodhead has always come up big in big games?
Because Ben Vereen has had very few games to show he's consistent?
Because Demps has never, ever played an NFL game?

Well said, but looking at the whole picture isn't a situational RB the place where you let a veteran go to groom younger players who already have some experience in your offensive sets, as opposed to your starting right (and versatile) tackle or your best and biggest CB or your two best WRs?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Woodhead hasn't made the clutch plays Faulk did though.

He's made big plays. Clutch plays. Not his fault that in the game context the QB, the OL or the D had playoff failures that diminished his plays in reverse looking glass context.

 

[TomPatriot]

That's not irrational. Me, I have a hard time cutting a guy who has been Faulk like clutch in big games for a one game wonder. Faulk's performances were key in all SB playoff runs.

BTW I'm a homer who sees upside potential in Vereen & Demps. Potential is the word.

BTW, I like Woodhead. He has guts and quickness and he plays smart.

I can't wait to watch Demps.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well said, but looking at the whole picture isn't a situational RB the place where you let a veteran go to groom younger players who already have some experience in your offensive sets, as opposed to your starting right (and versatile) tackle or your best and biggest CB or your two best WRs?

Doesn't this question really hinge on how much money Woodhead holds out for? As a 5th year veteran, the minimum is only something like $715,000, which is only about $300,000 more than the rookie minimum.

 

[Ring 6]

He's made big plays. Clutch plays. Not his fault that in the game context the QB, the OL or the D had playoff failures that diminished his plays in reverse looking glass context.

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying I haven't seen him make a lot of great clutch plays in big games.
He's a fine player, and makes plays, I just don't see anything in his performance that stands out as overwhelming me clutch, or radically better in a big game.
Ultimately he is a role player, and at a role player paycheck, I'd love to have him, but we have a player on the roster who looks like he would be able to assume this role, so contract demands might make him expendable.

 

[DocHoliday]

Woodhead hasn't made the clutch plays Faulk did though.

Did you miss him being one of the few guys who showed up in the SB?

He's also the de facto leader of the RB core according to many interviews from Ridley and Vereen.

 

[Brady2Moss]

No "it" hasnt.
First, the Texans were a better defense this year than the Ravens.
The Broncos were a better defense last year than the Giants.
The only way your statement is correct is if your definition of 'good defense' is one that we lost to and 'bad defense' is one we defeated.


Once again, an argument that dismisses facts that don't support it is a weak argument.
You are now saying 'good defenses' that beat us, that werent really very good are better than ones that didn't beat us that were better, because you have decided its a scheme thing.


I'm sorry, but facts are facts. Taking one game, redefining things to suit your argument then overlooking the success the scheme has had over a long period of time is silly, so your illness is self-inflicted.



Umm, because that isn't what happened.



There is no trend. The team has lost 5 playoff games in 5 different situations against 5 different teams, in many cases with very different personell.
Everything is only OK when the team wins the SB, but not winning the SB doesn't mean your poor analysis of what went wrong is suddenly correct.

Using a teams regular season statistical ranking is often folly in the playoffs. Last year the Giants got healthy finally in time for the playoffs and I'd say they were an elite unit despite whatever the rankings said they did in the REGULAR season. Broncos gave up 45 points to us while the worst ranked Giants gave up 2 to Atlanta, 20 to the best offense in the league, 17 to the 49ers, and 17 to us a top 3 offense in the league. I dont care what your statistics say that is better than anything the Broncos did in January. Same thing with the Ravens they never allowed 41 points like the Texans. My criteria is a defense that is playing well at the end of the year, not one that played well for 16 weeks and poops itself in the playoffs. Kind of like my criteria for our offense I dont think its all that great if it poops itself in the playoffs like it always does.

I shouldnt have included 07-09 because those did feature a viable outside threat, but was plagued with problems of not enough targets for Brady. Anyway if you think the offense is fine I don't know what to tell you. Every time this team faces a defense that stops YAC then the offense is toast.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying I haven't seen him make a lot of great clutch plays in big games.
He's a fine player, and makes plays, I just don't see anything in his performance that stands out as overwhelming me clutch, or radically better in a big game.
Ultimately he is a role player, and at a role player paycheck, I'd love to have him, but we have a player on the roster who looks like he would be able to assume this role, so contract demands might make him expendable.

I think most of us here are close to agreement. If Woody expects or can get big bucks, we have potential depth to let it happen and keep the cap $, otherwise for just a couple hundred K above vet he's a proven big game player unlike say Hooman who went all Caspar the Ghost vs the Ravinz.

 

[kennyb]

Ok with Welker leaving.
Talib will want too much money
Lloyd is worth his contract
How about this as a money saver? Trade Mankins, sign Thomas. Mankins ought to be worth a number 1. Mankins is breaking down, Thomas did well in his place last year.
Keep Vollmer.
Somebody mentioned rebuilding. What? This team has been rebuilding for three years. Yes we could use a coverage middle linebacker, yes we could use a top flight SS, yes we could use a big fast WR. Who doesn't? Bill will tweak, fans will freak and we will compete for the division championship, the afc championship and maybe the super bowl.

1st for mankins? If you cut him outright, I don't think anyone would want his huge contract. You couldn't get anything for him.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Bedard sure kicked up a ****storm...

I think he's reading tea leaves on Welker (whom he defended to the death last off season) believing both sides are a little too entrenched to find a middle ground. That ship probably sailed last spring, if not the fall before. If they don't figure it out I think they are in trouble. Like that old adage that those who fail to learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

Lloyd is overpaid for what he showed here. Branch produced more (beyond total yards) in 2010-11 for less. $4M in the bank. $5M more due in 2013. $3M on the back end. That said, his options are as limited as theirs. I think they can keep him and squeeze him into incentivizing that option. Although if they did let him walk the cap savings this season would be $3.5M as he could be treated like a June 1 cut spreading his $2M in dead cap over the two remaining seasons on his deal.

Letting both walk and replacing them with some diva who wants $10-12M per for 5-6 years would be a risk not worth taking in Brady's golden years. This team was arguably a healthy #1TE away from winning the last 2 superbowls... They need another (or a more physical) outside the numbers WR, and preferably one who would also be a legit target in coverage and in the red zone like Boldin. Addition by subtraction isn't a viable option. Especially if part of the subtraction is Welker.

Woodhead has out earned his contract. And it won't cost that much more to extend him. <$2M per on a 2-3 year deal (a lot less than Faulk used to make). That unit is operating on the cheap. It needs a veteran presence. Letting go of one who excels in up tempo in their complicated scheme would be foolish. They don't entirely trust Ridley yet, let alone Vereen. And who knows what Bolden and Demps will actually amount to or if Demps can even stay on the field at this level. People forget how clutch Woodhead has been because in the end it wasn't enough...

Edelman will be back because the market for QB to WR projects who can't stay on the field is limited. No way he sniffs $2M...unless over a million of it is in NLTBE incentives.

Chung is a goner. Not so sure Arrington is, though. As DB said, he's actually OK when used properly. Keeping him will kind of depend on what his market turns out to be if they let it come to that. Remotely competent corners are at a premium with all the nickle defenses coordinators are running out there.

Not nearly as concerned with OL issues as those guys are more easily replaced hereabouts than most any other position. The Dante factor. Unless Vollmer is willing to take an incentivized deal, wave to him on his way out the door. Lots of RT candidates hitting the market and the draft is said to be deep.

Talib is a tossup. They need a competent LCB. He's just got a lot of baggage and perhaps some issues that may make other options more paletable. Depends on what he's looking for. They won't give him a big deal with guaranteed money, but some idiot GM may. He needs to be on an option (prove it) deal with playing time incentives extending into the first 3 even if the option is picked up.

 

[Deus Irae]

....I shouldnt have included 07-09 because those did feature a viable outside threat, but was plagued with problems of not enough targets for Brady. Anyway if you think the offense is fine I don't know what to tell you. Every time this team faces a defense that stops YAC then the offense is toast.

Here we go again....

2010 - Dumbass INT, Easy TD dropped. Just assuming the easy FG on the Brady int drive, that's a minimum of 7 points pissed away right there. Even if that's all they get, and the game stays the same the rest of the way, that's still 28-28.

2011 - Gronk is lame and a detriment to the team. BB, in a brainlock moment, still plays him and has plays drawn up for him, one of which results in an INT when the lame gronk is outfought for the ball by a guy who had no business winning that battle against him. Despite this, the Patriots have the lead late in the 4th quarter.

2012 - Gronk out for the game. The Patriots move the ball up and down the field on the Ravens, but can't put it in the endzone. Perhaps coincidentally , Gronk is the team's best red zone threat and was missing. Despite this, and even with the loss of the team's CB1 early on in the game, the Patriots held the lead until just about the 6 minute mark of the 3rd quarter.


A healty Gronk probably results in wins in both 2011 and 2012. Smarter QB play on a simple screen pass, and better hands on the TE, probably leads to a big early lead, and a completely different game, against the Jets in 2010.

 

[Ring 6]

Using a teams regular season statistical ranking is often folly in the playoffs.

Its better than using your standard...if we had a good game they stink, it we didnt they are good.

Last year the Giants got healthy finally in time for the playoffs and I'd say they were an elite unit despite whatever the rankings said they did in the REGULAR season.

Because you need it to in order to support your argument.

Broncos gave up 45 points to us

Again, keeping with your argument, if we did well they suck, if we didn't they are great, so therefore we can't beat great defenses. You are making up the rules as you go.

while the worst ranked Giants gave up 2 to Atlanta, 20 to the best offense in the league, 17 to the 49ers, and 17 to us a top 3 offense in the league. I dont care what your statistics say that is better than anything the Broncos did in January. Same thing with the Ravens they never allowed 41 points like the Texans.

The Ravens allowed 43 to Houston. Wanna try again?

My criteria is a defense that is playing well at the end of the year, not one that played well for 16 weeks and poops itself in the playoffs. Kind of like my criteria for our offense I dont think its all that great if it poops itself in the playoffs like it always does.

Of course it is. Then you can define good defense as any team we lose to and bad defense as any team we beat. You are making an argument then creating the definitions as if they fit your argument they are correct and if they do not, they aren't.

I shouldnt have included 07-09 because those did feature a viable outside threat, but was plagued with problems of not enough targets for Brady. Anyway if you think the offense is fine I don't know what to tell you. Every time this team faces a defense that stops YAC then the offense is toast.

So we were toast the first time we faced the Ravens this year and scored 30?
What exactly is a 'defense that stops YAC'? We had 428 yard vs the Ravens. They didn't win because they 'stopped YAC'. They won because we got inside the 25 6 times and scored 13 points, (nothing to do with YAC) because we allowed 3 consecutive TD drives without resistance, because Ridley was knocked unconscious and fumbled, because we had 4-5 missed 3rd down conversions on plays that were there and that we convert 95% of the time.
If we had an offense that was inherently incapable of scoring points against that Baltimore defense we would have finished in the bottom half of the NFL in scoring. Teams have bad days, that is not a reason to get rid of their strengths.