Pats Interested In Mike Wallace (per Miami Herald's Armando Salguero)

[JoeSixPat]

Wallace avg: 65 receptions 1095 yards 9TDs 16.9 Y/R
Welker avg: 112 receptions 1,243 yards 6TDs 11.1 Y/R

I understand fans balking at any guy who will probably be asking for $10 million a year, but are fans really looking at Wallace and Welker as "comparable" players?

Just because they have a "WR" next to their names doesn't mean they play the same position.

That's like comparing Randy Moss to Troy Brown... Sure they're both receivers but they play completely different roles.

 

[Brady2Moss]

Which year did Parcells draft Brady?

Sorry my post should have included the Pete Carroll era as well the basic point was not BELICHICK

Vinatieri, Troy Brown, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Kevin Faulk, Damien Woody, Tedy Bruschi all integral part of one or multiple super bowl runs. I'm not going to get in an argument with you guys you seem to think the team is fine but "unlucky" because of injuries or some other excuse, I'm done being a homer I was the same way before.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry my post should have included the Pete Carroll era as well the basic point was not BELICHICK

Vinatieri, Troy Brown, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Kevin Faulk, Damien Woody, Tedy Bruschi all integral part of one or multiple super bowl runs. I'm not going to get in an argument with you guys you seem to think the team is fine but "unlucky" because of injuries or some other excuse, I'm done being a homer I was the same way before.

It's not that everyone thinks the team is fine. Even the biggest homers came off of that position somewhere between 2010 and 2011. The problem arises because your recent arguments generally make little to no sense. That's on you, not on others.

 

[Brady2Moss]

It's not that everyone thinks the team is fine. Even the biggest homers came off of that position somewhere between 2010 and 2011. The problem arises because your recent arguments generally make little to no sense. That's on you, not on others.

Ya my arguments make no sense

1) Paying Welker isn't getting this offense over the hump because paying a premium to keep your move the chains offense that gets destroyed in the playoffs isn't working.
2) Bill goes cheapo in free agency (Not cheap in terms of total dollars because they spend to the cap, but in terms of paying premier talent) to get a bunch of JAGs instead of one or two impact players, and every year some get cut, some get hurt, and every once in a while someone has a good year since all of them are over the hill past 30. Again this makes the team real good in the regular season and left with their tail between their legs when its time for some plays to be made.

If that makes no sense to you that's fine, we'll go 12-4 win the divisional round game against a crap opponent and score less than 20 points in an embarrassing home playoff lose again next year and I'll be here saying the same thing and being told I'm a delusional fool.

 

[yopats]

Incarcerated Bob IBN (@incarceratedbob) tweeted at 3:26 PM on Sat, Mar 09, 2013:

IBN Sports Wrap - Breaking News : Mike Wallace Has An Agreement In Principle With Dolphins!!! by Incarcerated Bob http://t.co/4mqPYmCOQx

 

[Big-T]

That means Wallace is a Patriot then

Bob is very inaccurate for a "source".

 

[Sciz]

Can we have a no-Bob rule on here this offseason?

 

[yopats]

Re: Re: Pats Interested In Mike Wallace (per Miami Herald's Armando Salguero)

Can we have a no-Bob rule on here this offseason?

You know what he does hit on quite a few..he had the Peyton move weeks before anyone else and Mario Williams last year and many others.

My. 02

 

[Sciz]

You know what he does hit on quite a few..he had the Peyton move weeks before anyone else and Mario Williams last year and many others.

My. 02

Yeah, it's easy to be first when you guess. He's had multiple bad reports, the biggest probably being Asomugha to the Jets.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ya my arguments make no sense

1) Paying Welker isn't getting this offense over the hump because paying a premium to keep your move the chains offense that gets destroyed in the playoffs isn't working.

And this is how you prove my point. Welker's playoff numbers are pretty much a match for his regular season numbers. What [highlight]should[/highlight] that tell you?

It [highlight]should[/highlight] tell you that he's probably not the problem, especially since the team's gone to 2 Super Bowls and 3 AFGGs in the 4 years that he and Brady have been in the playoffs together. Your inability to understand that

a.) Even the best don't win every year

b.) There have been reasons for the losses that go beyond Welker

c.) Without Welker, the team wouldn't have gotten as far as it did

is why you make such illogical posts.

2) Bill goes cheapo in free agency (Not cheap in terms of total dollars because they spend to the cap, but in terms of paying premier talent) to get a bunch of JAGs instead of one or two impact players, and every year some get cut, some get hurt, and every once in a while someone has a good year since all of them are over the hill past 30. Again this makes the team real good in the regular season and left with their tail between their legs when its time for some plays to be made.

Belichick's idea is that you [highlight]generally[/highlight] are better off bringing in numbers than you are banking on specific individuals. He's right. It's the same as the logic about trading down in the draft. His moves make statistical sense. The issue is how well he converts on the moves.

If that makes no sense to you that's fine, we'll go 12-4 win the divisional round game against a crap opponent and score less than 20 points in an embarrassing home playoff lose again next year and I'll be here saying the same thing and being told I'm a delusional fool.

Because you don't think things through, you come up with kind of posts I was talking about. The team, from top to bottom, is imperfect, as is every team. Mistakes are made, on the field and off. However, the Patriots have been at the top of the heap for more than a decade. You can't win every season. Injuries have clearly impacted this team greatly in some of the most promising postseasons (2007/2011/2012), and failure to win a SB with player "A" doesn't necessarily mean that player "A" isn't good enough, isn't worth the money or isn't worth keeping.

If it required a SB to prove a player's worth, there would be damned few players worth anything at all.

 

[jmt57]

Ya my arguments make no sense

1) Paying Welker isn't getting this offense over the hump because paying a premium to keep your move the chains offense that gets destroyed in the playoffs isn't working.
2) Bill goes cheapo in free agency (Not cheap in terms of total dollars because they spend to the cap, but in terms of paying premier talent) to get a bunch of JAGs instead of one or two impact players, and every year some get cut, some get hurt, and every once in a while someone has a good year since all of them are over the hill past 30. Again this makes the team real good in the regular season and left with their tail between their legs when its time for some plays to be made.

If that makes no sense to you that's fine, we'll go 12-4 win the divisional round game against a crap opponent and score less than 20 points in an embarrassing home playoff lose again next year and I'll be here saying the same thing and being told I'm a delusional fool.

If you can show some statistical or historical evidence that paying more money on top talent (which will also cause the team to carry more $400k players on the rest of the roster) is a superior strategy to the method that Patriots utilize, then I'm all for it.

Now I will readily admit that I don't have statistical or historical evidence to say that course of action does not work at my fingertips either, but anecdotally I can think of several teams where it has not worked out well (Raiders of the last decade, Eagles of 2011-12, Jerry Jones' Cowboys, Dan Snyder's Redskins, etc.).

Kraft and Belichick are of the belief that 9+6+3 is better than 15+2+1. Considering how much the roster has already gotten away from that strategy with the Brady, Mankins and Wilfork contracts, I'm a bit leery of making it even more top heavy.

There are reasons that the Patriots have not won a championship in a few years, but I'm not sold on the theory that it is because they are not devoting a large enough portion of the cap to the most expensive spots on the roster.

 

[Mack Herron]

If you can show some statistical or historical evidence that paying more money on top talent (which will also cause the team to carry more $400k players on the rest of the roster) is a superior strategy to the method that Patriots utilize, then I'm all for it.

Now I will readily admit that I don't have statistical or historical evidence to say that course of action does not work at my fingertips either, but anecdotally I can think of several teams where it has not worked out well (Raiders of the last decade, Eagles of 2011-12, Jerry Jones' Cowboys, Dan Snyder's Redskins, etc.).

Kraft and Belichick are of the belief that 9+6+3 is better than 15+2+1. Considering how much the roster has already gotten away from that strategy with the Brady, Mankins and Wilfork contracts, I'm a bit leery of making it even more top heavy.

There are reasons that the Patriots have not won a championship in a few years, but I'm not sold on the theory that it is because they are not devoting a large enough portion of the cap to the most expensive spots on the roster.

The key is talent not dollars as salaries will not correspond to production. Drafting well and having young, impact players delivering "above their contract" is the ideal way to fill out the top level talent.

 

[Brady2Moss]

And this is how you prove my point. Welker's playoff numbers are pretty much a match for his regular season numbers. What [highlight]should[/highlight] that tell you?

It [highlight]should[/highlight] tell you that he's probably not the problem, especially since the team's gone to 2 Super Bowls and 3 AFGGs in the 4 years that he and Brady have been in the playoffs together. Your inability to understand that

a.) Even the best don't win every year

b.) There have been reasons for the losses that go beyond Welker

c.) Without Welker, the team wouldn't have gotten as far as it did

is why you make such illogical posts.



Belichick's idea is that you [highlight]generally[/highlight] are better off bringing in numbers than you are banking on specific individuals. He's right. It's the same as the logic about trading down in the draft. His moves make statistical sense. The issue is how well he converts on the moves.



Because you don't think things through, you come up with kind of posts I was talking about. The team, from top to bottom, is imperfect, as is every team. Mistakes are made, on the field and off. However, the Patriots have been at the top of the heap for more than a decade. You can't win every season. Injuries have clearly impacted this team greatly in some of the most promising postseasons (2007/2011/2012), and failure to win a SB with player "A" doesn't necessarily mean that player "A" isn't good enough, isn't worth the money or isn't worth keeping.

If it required a SB to prove a player's worth, there would be damned few players worth anything at all.

Lmao you don't even read my posts you just try to degrade my intelligence. First of all Welker isn't the problem if you live in a vacuum like you seem to do. The problem is paying him 10 million a year to keep doing what he does which is make our offense easy to stop in the playoffs. Welker can go on catching 70 yards a game in the playoffs with minimal touchdowns and make it harder for us to score in chunks since he can't do crap beyond 10 yards. If you paid 10 million dollars to an outside threat or even a slot guy that can break a 10 yard route into a long touchdown like Cruz the offense is way better suited to win.

I don't care about Welker he just isn't what the team needs. The results SHOULD tell you that the team is close but is held back by one consistent problem which is lack of an outside threat.

I think 6 years of unsuccessfully winning a super bowl is not reason alone to say get rid of Welker. What is reason is that the way they have been unsuccessful has been the same freaking recipe every year. Crunch down on the middle and theres no where to go because the receivers can't do CRAP outside the numbers or down the field besides Gronk.

It is moronic that you act like there is no problem with the offense its the same problem every year. I've had this argument with you multiple times and they always end with you calling me someone that can't think, it probably makes you feel better that you're the only person on the forum capable of thought, but your thoughts are idiotic and your condescending attitude is laughable because this is a message board and I don't give a rats ass about what you think of my intelligence.

 

[Archeryaddict12]

Lmao you don't even read my posts you just try to degrade my intelligence. First of all Welker isn't the problem if you live in a vacuum like you seem to do. The problem is paying him 10 million a year to keep doing what he does which is make our offense easy to stop in the playoffs. Welker can go on catching 70 yards a game in the playoffs with minimal touchdowns and make it harder for us to score in chunks since he can't do crap beyond 10 yards. If you paid 10 million dollars to an outside threat or even a slot guy that can break a 10 yard route into a long touchdown like Cruz the offense is way better suited to win.

I don't care about Welker he just isn't what the team needs. The results SHOULD tell you that the team is close but is held back by one consistent problem which is lack of an outside threat.

I think 6 years of unsuccessfully winning a super bowl is not reason alone to say get rid of Welker. What is reason is that the way they have been unsuccessful has been the same freaking recipe every year. Crunch down on the middle and theres no where to go because the receivers can't do CRAP outside the numbers or down the field besides Gronk.

It is moronic that you act like there is no problem with the offense its the same problem every year. I've had this argument with you multiple times and they always end with you calling me someone that can't think, it probably makes you feel better that you're the only person on the forum capable of thought, but your thoughts are idiotic and your condescending attitude is laughable because this is a message board and I don't give a rats ass about what you think of my intelligence.

Yeah, welker is good but he is part of our SB drought. We need guys on the outside not all inside. This way it keeps D honest and not flooding the middle of the field and exposing our weakness.

 

[Brady6]

Yeah, welker is good but he is part of our SB drought. We need guys on the outside not all inside. This way it keeps D honest and not flooding the middle of the field and exposing our weakness.

Moss was part of that drought too though. Our offense has never taken us to a SB win without an above average defense too.

 

[ausbacker]

Can we have a no-Bob rule on here this offseason?

Remember when Julius Peppers and Matt Forte were Patriots? Incarcerated Bob is a fool of the highest order.

 

[ausbacker]

Lmao you don't even read my posts you just try to degrade my intelligence. First of all Welker isn't the problem if you live in a vacuum like you seem to do. The problem is paying him 10 million a year to keep doing what he does which is make our offense easy to stop in the playoffs. Welker can go on catching 70 yards a game in the playoffs with minimal touchdowns and make it harder for us to score in chunks since he can't do crap beyond 10 yards. If you paid 10 million dollars to an outside threat or even a slot guy that can break a 10 yard route into a long touchdown like Cruz the offense is way better suited to win.

I don't care about Welker he just isn't what the team needs. The results SHOULD tell you that the team is close but is held back by one consistent problem which is lack of an outside threat.

I think 6 years of unsuccessfully winning a super bowl is not reason alone to say get rid of Welker. What is reason is that the way they have been unsuccessful has been the same freaking recipe every year. Crunch down on the middle and theres no where to go because the receivers can't do CRAP outside the numbers or down the field besides Gronk.

It is moronic that you act like there is no problem with the offense its the same problem every year. I've had this argument with you multiple times and they always end with you calling me someone that can't think, it probably makes you feel better that you're the only person on the forum capable of thought, but your thoughts are idiotic and your condescending attitude is laughable because this is a message board and I don't give a rats ass about what you think of my intelligence.

That's an indictment on you if you believe the Patriots have been doing the same thing every year. I don't recall a tight end centric or hurry up offense of this magnitude before the Patriots acquired the players to do so.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I obviously mean after 2004 when we had an elite quarterback making pennies and tons of talent drafted by Parcells.

Every team is different we have few holes and tons of money, go fill them with impact play makers. Not bargain dumpster guys that have a >50% bust rate.

Herp derp, I wonder why that's the case.

Pretty funny that you're pointing out how good of shape the Pats are in in the same post where you're trashing on the philosophy that got them into such a good position in the first place.

Good news, though! Your philosophy on team-building has been enacted several times in the recent NFL past, so we don't have to engage in a purely theoretical debate here. Just go and check out how the Eagles, Redskins, Jets and Bears have been doing lately.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You really going to act like 01, 03 weren't parcell's players? I'm not going to take the time to go through but a lot of those key players were Parcell's or free agents that Bill hit on, which he hasn't done for years now. Draftings been crap too up until 2010 since the last super bowl.

By the way Wallace has reached an agreement in principal with the Dolphins 5 years 60 million according to Incarcerated Bob, who you will all say is a moron and then disappear when it turns out he was right.

Bill probably offered him 7 million per

Incarcerated Bob is rarely right Did you just start following football this season, or do you just choose to ignore his track record when it suits you?

 

[BradyFTW!]

They didn't. They gave him the lowest tender, only gives them the right to match any offer.

Danario Alexander - San Diego Chargers - 2013 Player Profile - Rotoworld.com

He's a beast. The obvious question is how long will his knee last. The Bolts will likely match a 1 year offer and he will unlikely get more that that duration.

I got excited as soon as I saw that. The Pats would be crazy not to make him an offer.