Patriots and Edelman discussing new contract

[Brady6]

Stock is a much better example. Let us presume that there are no transaction charges. Given that current online trading charges, that is almost accurate. Let's also ignore tax consequences. Let's be in an IRA.

Every day, you make the choice whether to buy or sell each stock you hold at the market price. It is really that simple. It make exactly zero difference what you paid for the stock or how it has performed in the past. One of the most common mistakes of investors is to fail to sell because of past history (what they paid and prior earnings).

He is not a stock though, he had an up front, which you could call a “down payment”, and then future payments go towards maintaining the same exact entity. When you buy stocks, you receive more of them; you can diversify into different stocks. Amendola is the house you put a down payment on, everything you pay forward is to maintain, and retain the house, you are not getting more Amendola’s.

 

[50-yard-line]

He was the 2nd most productive receiver on the team last year and produced half of Edelman's stats on half the reps while playing on a torn groin.

The Pats got Corey Dillon because he had a bad year gutting it out on a torn groin.

Your definition of "failure" would have half the league in FA every year (including every receiver who signed last year).

 

[Brady6]

He was the 2nd most productive receiver on the team last year and produced half of Edelman's stats on half the reps while playing on a torn groin.

The Pats got Corey Dillon because he had a bad year gutting it out on a torn groin.

Your definition of "failure" would have half the league in FA every year (including every receiver who signed last year).

He was not the second most productive player though; Gronkowski and Vereen both nearly matched his output in 7 and 8 games respectively. Dobson and Thompkins had nearly as many yards, and more touchdowns despite being rookies, playing less snaps, and receiving less targets.

You are also ignoring that 50% of Amendola’s production came in 3 games, and his production in the other 11 games was an average of 3 receptions, 32 yards, and 0.08 touchdowns per game.

You are referencing what Corey Dillon did on the Bengals, not on the Patriots, the Bengals also traded Dillon after that season; I am not sure how that is a good reference. Corey Dillon was 29 in 2003, had 9543 offensive yards from scrimmage, and 50 touchdowns entering the 2003 season, he was the 43rd overall pick in the draft. Amendola was an UDFA who has less than 2500 career offensive yards from scrimmage and 9 career touchdowns. That is like comparing a Bentley to a Kia.

 

[supafly]

He was not the second most productive player though

I'm not sure how this is even remotely disputable?

Danny Amendola trailed only Julian Edelman in number of receptions. Both of your examples of Gronkowki and Vereen had less catches; therefore Amendola was indeed the #2nd most productive receiving option for 2013.

You're just attempting to project Gronk and Vereen's potential had they actually been able to play a full season. The bottom line was that Amendola was the #2nd most productive receiver in terms of number of catches, and that was unfortunately one of our weaknesses that bit the team in the ass in the postseason.

You are also ignoring that 50% of Amendola’s production came in 3 games, and his production in the other 11 games was an average of 3 receptions, 32 yards, and 0.08 touchdowns per game.

As has been pointed out, one could make the same claim for just about any player in the NFL, aside from maybe QBs.

Just about every single player has a handful of excellent games that raise their stats. Look at Calvin Johnson's stats for this year if you'd take away his best 4 games = 3.91 catches per game. That's hands down the best receiving option in the entire NFL.

 

[goheels22002]

He was not the second most productive player though; Gronkowski and Vereen both nearly matched his output in 7 and 8 games respectively. Dobson and Thompkins had nearly as many yards, and more touchdowns despite being rookies, playing less snaps, and receiving less targets.

Yeah, but, Amendola was the 2nd most productive receiver. He was #2 in yards and receptions. This is not fantasy football. The data tells the story. There's no need to exaggerate.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2013.htm

 

[Kontradiction]

The problem with talking about what "a WR3 should earn" is that, in this offense, is the slot receiver really the WR3?

In the Moss/Welker era, Moss was 1a and Welker was 1b. In the 2-TE era, he was 1a and Branch/Lloyd was 1b.

You're talking about Edelman being the first option, which is correct in this offense a lot of the time. The only reason he was the first option this year, though, was due to:

1. Gronk being on the shelf most of the season.
2. Amendola tearing his groin in Week 1 and not being the same the rest of 2013.
3. Rookies filling out the rest of the receiving corps.
4. Shoddy interior protection, meaning Brady had to get rid of the ball quickly.
5. Edelman being the only receiver with experience in the offense coupled with a rapport with Brady.

With another year of growth in the system for the rookie trio (and assuming at least one of them makes a second year leap), Amendola returning to health to start 2014, Gronk coming back, and (hopefully) a move in FA for another receiver that can threaten outside the numbers, if not downfield, is Edelman really a WR1? Should he get paid alongside the Andre Johnsons and A.J. Greens of the world? I don't think so.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

You're talking about Edelman being the first option, which is correct in this offense a lot of the time. The only reason he was the first option this year, though, was due to:

1. Gronk being on the shelf most of the season.
2. Amendola tearing his groin in Week 1 and not being the same the rest of 2013.
3. Rookies filling out the rest of the receiving corps.
4. Shoddy interior protection, meaning Brady had to get rid of the ball quickly.
5. Edelman being the only receiver with experience in the offense coupled with a rapport with Brady.

With another year of growth in the system for the rookie trio (and assuming at least one of them makes a second year leap), Amendola returning to health to start 2014, Gronk coming back, and (hopefully) a move in FA for another receiver that can threaten outside the numbers, if not downfield, is Edelman really a WR1? Should he get paid alongside the Andre Johnsons and A.J. Greens of the world? I don't think so.

My point is not that he should be paid like a WR1. My point is that the Patriots offense over the last decade or so resists that sort of obvious analysis.

 

[Kontradiction]

My point is not that he should be paid like a WR1. My point is that the Patriots offense over the last decade or so resists that sort of obvious analysis.

The last time the Pats had a true outside the numbers WR was Moss. I seem to remember him performing like and being a WR1 and typically being the first option. So it hasn't been "over the last decade or so". It's only been over the last 3+ years since they became an offense that specialized inside the numbers and that's only been because of need. Hence why so many are trying to make the case that Edelman should be paid as a WR1. I did misunderstand you're stance though, so my apologies on that.

 

[BadMoFo]

Jeff Howe ?@jeffphowe 2m

Negotiations between the Patriots and Edelman are ongoing. Pats getting aggressive in final 24 hours before free agency.

 

[mgteich]

de ja vu all over again

The team will offer Edelman a final deal and then move on? Or Edelman will take the deal. We will know in 24 hours.

Jeff Howe ?@jeffphowe 2m

Negotiations between the Patriots and Edelman are ongoing. Pats getting aggressive in final 24 hours before free agency.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, it is relevant still, it may be a sunk cost, but it is still relevant if he remains on this roster. It is only irrelevant when determining whether to move on from him, because you cannot recover it, but if you considering further investing into him you damn sure better consider the costs you have already sunk into it. This type of thought is how people go broke investing.

I would not sign Amendola for that cost, and the reason is simple. I could sign Austin Collie for $765K non-guaranteed for one year, I think Collie offers basically the same skill set, same potential production and carries the same risk of injury. Amendola had one shot, he was signed by a marquee franchise, given the chance to replace the greatest slot receiver of his era, play with the GOAT QB, and was paid big money to do so, and he failed with his one chance. He showed the entire NFL that he is not the next Welker and is unable to remain on the football field. Now he is Austin Collie in my opinion, a player who can be productive as a fourth or fifth option but carries to much risk to justify a long-term contract.

The good: Since the last debate on the sunk vs. prospective cost topic, you now seem to be able to distinguish between the two.

The bad: You still have no idea why the distinction matters, what it means, and how sunk cost theory works. The short answer is that it's the polar opposite of what you just articulated.

 

[Brady6]

The good: Since the last debate on the sunk vs. prospective cost topic, you now seem to be able to distinguish between the two.

The bad: You still have no idea why the distinction matters, what it means, and how sunk cost theory works. The short answer is that it's the polar opposite of what you just articulated.

You sure do spend a lot of time following me around this forum, it is cute, and all but, I am married.

I know plenty about sunk costs, economics, and finances in general, I know you went to Babson College but I do not really care, unless you can show me a seven-figure bank account or better you really do not hold much weight in my mind.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit' people like me........

 

[BradyFTW!]

You sure do spend a lot of time following me around this forum, it is cute, and all but, I am married.

I know plenty about sunk costs, economics, and finances in general, I know you went to Babson College but I do not really care, unless you can show me a seven-figure bank account or better you really do not hold much weight in my mind.

It takes a special kind of stupid to continue to argue a point with two people who work in the that field for a living, when they've thoroughly sourced their argument with reputable sources and you are unable to offer a single source to back up the claim that you're making. Congratulations, you are that special kind of stupid.

 

[Joker]

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit' people like me........

 

[Brady6]

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit' people like me........

I like you Ivan! You are a solid dude!

 

[Brady6]

It takes a special kind of stupid to continue to argue a point with two people who work in the that field for a living, when they've thoroughly sourced their argument with reputable sources and you are unable to offer a single source to back up the claim that you're making. Congratulations, you are that special kind of stupid.

You can work in any field you want, does not mean you are successful. You do not behave like a person who is successful, successful people do not call other people stupid, they are not that petty and insecure.

Anyway I am better than this so I am not going to waste any more time on you, as I said in the other thread you are a poster I used to know.

Ignore time!

 

[goheels22002]

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit' people like me........

People not named Belichick. You got cut, too......

 

[Huckleberry1]

You sure do spend a lot of time following me around this forum, it is cute, and all but, I am married.

I know plenty about sunk costs, economics, and finances in general, I know you went to Babson College but I do not really care, unless you can show me a seven-figure bank account or better you really do not hold much weight in my mind.

Quoted for truth.

We should not be co mingling with the little people.

 

[manxman2601]

Quoted for truth.

We should not be co mingling with the little people.

Leprechauns?