- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 52,905
- Reaction score
- 33,918
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Pretty sure the Eagles would tell the Pats to pound sand.Not sure if this is worth a new thread because I don't know if the Eagles told the Pats to pound sand or not.
Not sure if this is worth a new thread because I don't know if the Eagles told the Pats to pound sand or not.
Would Patriots part with 4 for AJ and Eagles first?Is this why the Eagles cut 2 vet dbs to be able to afford their free agents and keep the core together.
Not sure if this is worth a new thread because I don't know if the Eagles told the Pats to pound sand or not.
Right, but it’s showing they know they need a true number 1. And add some teeth to the offensive weapons.That is pretty interesting. Of course there's been no indication if Brown actually IS available...
Lazard is a fine backup plan IMO. He looked fairly solid last year. Not a top end guy but better than a JAG and like you said, an actual X. You could do worse than something like Lazard + Godwin + Pop.Allen Lazard given permission to seek a trade. Obviously not a high end solution, but he does have the physical profile to play the X receiver role, which we currently have no one you can say that about. Even the free agent options discussed (i.e. Godwin) don't project well at that spot. If he reaches free agency, Lazard seems like a solid option to pursue just to give you a playable option at that spot. Gives you a chance to play Boutte, Polk and Bourne (if he's back) more as Z receivers vs. forcing them into playing the X. For Boutte and Polk in particular, that's beneficial because it gives you a chance to develop them in roles they're best suited for to gauge more accurately exactly what they can be. Even Baker has some questions about if he's better as X or a Z, so the added depth to avoid forcing him into the X spot only helps you put him in a position to best assess his ability.
I think Vrabel and Wolf both know it and they are chasing every possible angle, which is very encouraging.Right, but it’s showing they know they need a true number 1. And add some teeth to the offensive weapons.
Not saying PFF grades are everything, but Ronnie Stanley was the 39th ranked OT by PFF last year. Dan Moore Jr. was 46th. Stanley is played all 17 games last year, but was 13, 11, 1 and 6 in the 4 previous years. Moore has played played all 17 games twice and 16/17 games twice in his 4 year career so far. Stanley is going to be 31 this upcoming season, Moore will be 27.
I think we should pursue both. Put Moore at RT that way if/when Stanley gets hurt you have a backup plan. But in the event we can only have 1, I truly and genuinely think we're better off going for Moore. Stanley is better when they're both on the field, but I don't trust him to be on the field as consistently and he's at an age where you'd think those injuries start getting tougher to bounce back from and for his performance to decline in general. I think Stanley is more likely to make pro bowls in the next 3 years because he has that kind of ability while Moore doesn't, but I trust Moore to be more available and consistent over the next 3 years.
IMO, whether you sign Moore or Stanley (or both), LT is still the biggest long term need on this team and a positon they need to be prioritizing above all else. Even though Stanley is better on the upside, I trust Moore as a stop gap solution over him because dependability and youth to stay at current level of play for multiple seasons just make for a better stop gap IMO.
Rather add Kupp or Dyami Brown..Allen Lazard given permission to seek a trade. Obviously not a high end solution, but he does have the physical profile to play the X receiver role, which we currently have no one you can say that about. Even the free agent options discussed (i.e. Godwin) don't project well at that spot. If he reaches free agency, Lazard seems like a solid option to pursue just to give you a playable option at that spot. Gives you a chance to play Boutte, Polk and Bourne (if he's back) more as Z receivers vs. forcing them into playing the X. For Boutte and Polk in particular, that's beneficial because it gives you a chance to develop them in roles they're best suited for to gauge more accurately exactly what they can be. Even Baker has some questions about if he's better as X or a Z, so the added depth to avoid forcing him into the X spot only helps you put him in a position to best assess his ability.
You don't like R Stanley DB??What makes you think that Moore can play RT? He's taken all of 5 game snaps at the position in 4 years.
Looking at the "Total Offense" Grade is meaningless, honestly. Because their grades are so subjective.
Stanley gave up 2 sacks, 3 hits and 34 hurries including 5 hurries in 2 play-off games.. So, 2,3,29 during the regular season.
Compared to the 12 sacks, 3 hits, and 26 hurries by Dan Moore. Moore didn't allow a sack, hit, or hurry in the play-off game.
I think we both can agree that giving up 8 more hurries is better than giving up 10 more sacks.
Stanley, at this point in his career, is a better pass blocker than run blocker. He's a stopgap signing at best.
Moore is only a slight upgrade over Lowe. Moore gave up more sacks, but fewer "HITS" and takes fewer Penalties.
Maybe Marrone things he can improve on more and not on Lowe. I don't know. I know people love Maye, but not adding a true LT last year has hurt the Pats and it could be that the Pats won't be able to truly address it until 2026.
| 154 | 7K |
| 13 | 615 |
| 13 | 426 |
| 7 | 338 |
| 9 | 2K |
From our archive - this week all-time:
April 4 - April 19 (Through 26yrs)











