Patriots Rumor OT: Maxx Crosby wants to play for Mike Vrabel UPDATE: Breer expects him to be traded this week with the Pats a favorite

[mgteich]

Brady runs the Raiders.

He picked the HC. Nor the puppet GM. Brady will want alot for Crosby so he can rebuild the Raiders. The Raiders GM will do what Brady tells him to do.

Trading for Crosby is foolish. Look at GB and how well the Parsons trade worked out.

I 100% agree that a team shouldn't trade for a top player who is the one piece that would get them deep into the playoffs. especially if he is going to be injured. Being able to predict injuries to lkely player sis critical to the success of a GM.

 

[n1997y]

My friend.... they went to the Super Bowl last year. This is not a team engaged in a rebuild. This is a team looking for that 1 or 2 pieces which puts them over the top.

It’s actually both. Or more accurately it’s still looking for one or two missing pieces to fill front line gaps, as part of the rebuild, not yet really to put them over the top.

It went to the Super Bowl despite being almost universally regarded as being flawed, not yet ready to play at that level. It still needs to raise the level of play for starters in several areas while also adding the one or two missing pieces in other areas, and on top of that it doesn’t have the solid middle class depth needed to provide resilience for the inevitable wear and tear over the course of a long season.

It needs to complete the rebuild. Adding one or two missing pieces are a key part of that, but not all of it. They also need to build better depth across the board. And they need to improve the starters in several areas. Doing two of those three things might put them over the top, but doing all three to finish the rebuild is what it will take to re-establish a sustainable dynasty. That’s the measure of success isn’t it?

 

[BennyBledsoe]

Don't want him for any significant draft capital. Once the big guys start getting injuries, they tend to keep getting injuries.

 

[Rob0729]

You seem to not understand that there is an opportunity cost in giving up picks and paying top of the market pay.
Gonzalez isn’t being traded for.
It is not the same to trade for a guy in his rookie contract and a guy with 4 years and 120 million to go.

I said I dint see examples of trading for a guy at top pay working out. You are giving examples that are not that and arguing they are the same. If Crosby was on his rookie contract it would be a different set of circumstances.
If you want to define working out as we got a good guy but it cost us do much we didn’t win, I won’t agree.
I’m not interested in getting a good player that costs so much the team can’t get better.
The packers haven’t even started to feel the impact of what parsons cost. And yes you can control injuries by not building a roster that falls apart if 1 guy gets hurt because you paid so much for him.

Yes, if Crosby was on a rookie contract, it would cost the Pats more. You are right. The Pats would have to give up more in draft compensation and would have to pay Crosby more. The Pats don't have to pay a cent of the bonus he got when he signed his extension. Plus, they can cut him at any time with dead money ramifications.

And if you are going to judge trades based on how many Super Bowl wins the team gets, then we have nothing to talk about since you have fantasy expectations for trades.

And the Packers had more injury problems than Parsons that affected their season. Jordan Love going down for most of the end of the season arguably had a bigger impact to them losing down the stretch than Parsons' injury.

 

[Rob0729]

Brady runs the Raiders.

He picked the HC. Nor the puppet GM. Brady will want alot for Crosby so he can rebuild the Raiders. The Raiders GM will do what Brady tells him to do.

Trading for Crosby is foolish. Look at GB and how well the Parsons trade worked out.

He is an owner. Owners pick the HC. Brady isn't dealing with the day to day of the Raiders. During the season, he is spending more time at the facilities of the team he is doing color commentary for than he is the Raiders. He also has other business interests that he is dealing with. He isn't in Vegas every day dealing with the Raiders. You are dreaming. He isn't making the decisions.

And you have no evidence that Brady would block a trade to the Patriots if he is the one making the decisions. You think he has this desire to screw over the Patriots whenever he can. I don't think he thinks that way. I don't think he has the attachment with the Patriots that other former players have, but he also doesn't have a grudge against the Krafts that Belichick has.

And Parsons was a huge impact for the Packers until he tore his ACL. The Packers had a great defense when Parsons was playing. And the Cowboys defense totally fell apart from 2024 to 2025. Parsons is an argument for making the trade. Parsons changed the defensive fortunes of two different teams because he was that much of an impact player.

 

[PancakeBlockPaul]

I wanted Hendrickson but this gets me moist also...

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, if Crosby was on a rookie contract, it would cost the Pats more. You are right. The Pats would have to give up more in draft compensation and would have to pay Crosby more. The Pats don't have to pay a cent of the bonus he got when he signed his extension. Plus, they can cut him at any time with dead money ramifications.

And if you are going to judge trades based on how many Super Bowl wins the team gets, then we have nothing to talk about since you have fantasy expectations for trades.

And the Packers had more injury problems than Parsons that affected their season. Jordan Love going down for most of the end of the season arguably had a bigger impact to them losing down the stretch than Parsons' injury.

Do you think teams trades picks away for high contract guys without a goal of winning a SB?
Do you not think the moves the patriots make today should be with the goal of winning a SB?
Do you think more teams won SBs by putting major assets into trading for 1 guy or by using their assets to build a complete roster?

 

[Rob0729]

Do you think teams trades picks away for high contract guys without a goal of winning a SB?
Do you not think the moves the patriots make today should be with the goal of winning a SB?
Do you think more teams won SBs by putting major assets into trading for 1 guy or by using their assets to build a complete roster?

You make every move whether it is trading for an elite player or signing a practice squad player with the goal of winning the Super Bowl. You cannot judge every individual move based on whether that goal is achieved or not.

The Pats drafted Drake Maye with the intent of winning the Super Bowl or multiple Super Bowls with him as QB. If they don't do that, it doesn't mean he was a draft bust.

Only one team wins the Super Bowl every year. In the last 20 years, only small handful of teams have won one. Odds are good that no matter what moves the Pats make, they never win another Super Bowl with Vrabel as head coach. You cannot judge trades on Super Bowl wins.

This team just competed in a Super Bowl less than two months ago. They aren't that far away from potentially doing it again. They have the flexibility to make a big trade like Crosby and still fill other roster needs with plenty of cap flexibility and draft picks. If this was last year, I would be 100% against a trade because the Pats had far too many holes going into the offseason. This year, I would entertain the possibility because their biggest weakness may be the outside pass rush. And not many holes that need to be addressed.

 

[Ring 6]

You make every move whether it is trading for an elite player or signing a practice squad player with the goal of winning the Super Bowl. You cannot judge every individual move based on whether that goal is achieved or not.

The Pats drafted Drake Maye with the intent of winning the Super Bowl or multiple Super Bowls with him as QB. If they don't do that, it doesn't mean he was a draft bust.

Only one team wins the Super Bowl every year. In the last 20 years, only small handful of teams have won one. Odds are good that no matter what moves the Pats make, they never win another Super Bowl with Vrabel as head coach. You cannot judge trades on Super Bowl wins.

This team just competed in a Super Bowl less than two months ago. They aren't that far away from potentially doing it again. They have the flexibility to make a big trade like Crosby and still fill other roster needs with plenty of cap flexibility and draft picks. If this was last year, I would be 100% against a trade because the Pats had far too many holes going into the offseason. This year, I would entertain the possibility because their biggest weakness may be the outside pass rush. And not many holes that need to be addressed.

Of course you judge your decisions on whether they achieve your goal.
Having a lofty goal doesn’t mean you abandon it and settle.

Of course making a draft pick is entirely different. You are given the pick to make, you make the best one you can. Choosing to tie up significant assets in draft picks and cap space on one player is a philosophy that either turns out to have been right, or not.
If such a move fails to get you to your goal, it was not successful. Unless you are settling.
We know a lot of teams think that approach is how you win Super Bowl but struggle to find any that actually did with that approach. Yet year after year we see bad teams make this mistake or good teams set themselves back by gambling major resources on one guy. At what point do we say this strategy gets you a good player, but fails to reach the goal?
The patriots could probably upgrade 5 positions instead of trading for Crosby. History says that’s a better move.

 

[Rob0729]

Of course you judge your decisions on whether they achieve your goal.
Having a lofty goal doesn’t mean you abandon it and settle.

Of course making a draft pick is entirely different. You are given the pick to make, you make the best one you can. Choosing to tie up significant assets in draft picks and cap space on one player is a philosophy that either turns out to have been right, or not.
If such a move fails to get you to your goal, it was not successful. Unless you are settling.
We know a lot of teams think that approach is how you win Super Bowl but struggle to find any that actually did with that approach. Yet year after year we see bad teams make this mistake or good teams set themselves back by gambling major resources on one guy. At what point do we say this strategy gets you a good player, but fails to reach the goal?
The patriots could probably upgrade 5 positions instead of trading for Crosby. History says that’s a better move.

You judge all your moves put together on your goals of winning a Super Bowl. Not each individual move. It is about how they build the entire roster not one individual move. If the Patriots trade for Crosby and he ends getting 25 sacks and up being DPOY and the Pats are one and done in the playoffs because the Pats lose because the offense, that doesn't make Crosby a bad trade.

You just like to set the rules based on your opinions not based on reality. You just don't want to make the trade so you make ridiculous expectations that if the Pats trade for him they have to win a Super Bowl no matter what other moves they make or it is a huge failure. It just doesn't work that way.

I am not even that for trading for Crosby. I certainly wouldn't be upset if it happened as long as it wasn't too much to get. But I think he could be a huge contributor to a Super Bowl run. Personally, I would rather trade for AJ Brown because I believe he could be an elite WR and not cost that much to get (the Pats second, which is at the end of the round) and maybe a day three pick at most) if the Eagles ever get realistic with their expectations.

 

[Ring 6]

You judge all your moves put together on your goals of winning a Super Bowl. Not each individual move. It is about how they build the entire roster not one individual move. If the Patriots trade for Crosby and he ends getting 25 sacks and up being DPOY and the Pats are one and done in the playoffs because the Pats lose because the offense, that doesn't make Crosby a bad trade.

You just like to set the rules based on your opinions not based on reality. You just don't want to make the trade so you make ridiculous expectations that if the Pats trade for him they have to win a Super Bowl no matter what other moves they make or it is a huge failure. It just doesn't work that way.

I am not even that for trading for Crosby. I certainly wouldn't be upset if it happened as long as it wasn't too much to get. But I think he could be a huge contributor to a Super Bowl run. Personally, I would rather trade for AJ Brown because I believe he could be an elite WR and not cost that much to get (the Pats second, which is at the end of the round) and maybe a day three pick at most) if the Eagles ever get realistic with their expectations.

Now we are getting to the heart of this.
Yes you judge all moves together.
By trading for Crosby you choose to eliminate multiple other moves.
If Crosby turns out to be DPOY and you don’t win a SB then you’ve shown thinking that you need a great edge player at the expense of many other upgrades ti win a SB is proven wrong.
It’s not just what the player does it’s the impact across your roster and the opportunity cost.
Why are hyperbolizing? I never said win the SB or it’s a HUGE FAILURE. I said the goal is to win the SB and the bold move doesn’t result in a SB win, you were wrong about what the right move is. Many teams think it’s about that one guy. It almost never is.

 

[Toofy]

Hendrickson is not going to cost you any draft capital for lesser dollars maybe . Why sign Crosby while expending draft assets when you can get Hendrickson for free .

 

[XLIX]

You just like to set the rules based on your opinions not based on reality. You just don't want to make the trade so you make ridiculous expectations that if the Pats trade for him they have to win a Super Bowl no matter what other moves they make or it is a huge failure. It just doesn't work that way.

That’s what he does when he doesn’t like a deal or a trade. He sets up the unrealistic standard that “you have to win the Super Bowl or the trade was a disaster.”

It blew up in his face 5 years ago when he spent all season criticizing the Bucs saying they had to win the Super Bowl or signing Brady was a disaster and a failure - then they did win the Super Bowl.

Nice to see the same intellectually bankrupt strategy still with him.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

It also depends on your team building philosophy. Personally, I prefer establishing a solid rotating cast through good drafting and solid, mid-range free agent pickups with an occasional splurge here and there. I think having a team that doesn't fall off dramatically once you insert someone else is preferable and a little easier to do than finding superstars. Certainly, you hope some of your draftees and signings go off on a superstar level performance.

But I think that's what teams like the Seahawks and Giants teams of the past were able to do, at least with their pass rush. They just rotated in guys that could constantly produce pressure because they could stay fresh all game long.

And I mean, look at the Eagles. Hell, Milton Williams was a rotational player on that line.

 

[Boomer B]

Bears are the betting favorites to land Maxx Crosby

Will Raiders move their best player?

www.nbcsports.com

2 #1s and a player = No Thank You

 

[Real fan 02]

I was thinking about this very Topic but not happy with asking price. A First and a Second??Hell no! it's either one or the other.

Patriots Considered Potential Trade Partner For Jaguars Star WR

Might the New England Patriots be positioning themselves for a major splash heading into the 2026 NFL season? With trade buzz continuing to heat up throughout t

www.si.com

 

[PatsFan2]

Patriots Considered Potential Trade Partner For Jaguars Star WR

Might the New England Patriots be positioning themselves for a major splash heading into the 2026 NFL season? With trade buzz continuing to heat up throughout t

www.si.com

 

[Real fan 02]

It also depends on your team building philosophy. Personally, I prefer establishing a solid rotating cast through good drafting and solid, mid-range free agent pickups with an occasional splurge here and there. I think having a team that doesn't fall off dramatically once you insert someone else is preferable and a little easier to do than finding superstars. Certainly, you hope some of your draftees and signings go off on a superstar level performance.

But I think that's what teams like the Seahawks and Giants teams of the past were able to do, at least with their pass rush. They just rotated in guys that could constantly produce pressure because they could stay fresh all game long.

And I mean, look at the Eagles. Hell, Milton Williams was a rotational player on that line.

Agreed. 100%... if you look at our current defensive line.. the reason why we were able to step up during the playoffs was due to the rotation on the defensive line.. the edge pressure is where we need to beef up. Mid tier guys like oweh or mafe would do wonders to beef up the edge pressure and you draft 2 guys plus other teams cap cuts, UDFA so many opportunities to do so this off season..

 

[Rob0729]

Now we are getting to the heart of this.
Yes you judge all moves together.
By trading for Crosby you choose to eliminate multiple other moves.
If Crosby turns out to be DPOY and you don’t win a SB then you’ve shown thinking that you need a great edge player at the expense of many other upgrades ti win a SB is proven wrong.
It’s not just what the player does it’s the impact across your roster and the opportunity cost.
Why are hyperbolizing? I never said win the SB or it’s a HUGE FAILURE. I said the goal is to win the SB and the bold move doesn’t result in a SB win, you were wrong about what the right move is. Many teams think it’s about that one guy. It almost never is.

No. I can judge every individual move on their own merits. I am not a moron who cannot think except on a grand level. I judge all the moves together on the success of the team on a whole. Every year teams make good and they make bad moves. I don't judge each individual move based on whether the Pats win the Super Bowl.

As for Crosby being DPOY and not winning the Super Bowl proves me wrong, doesn't in the slightest. What if the Pats have a rash of injuries on offense going into the playoffs and Maye is out of the first playoff game? If the Pats lose that game, does it prove that acquiring Crosby was wrong? What if half the o-line is out and the replacements cannot block for Maye and it is worse than it even was in the Super Bowl this year? Is that because Crosby was a bad trade? There are many

I am "hyperbolizing" to make a point. By using the extreme of the argument to show how stupid your argument is. You believe that if the Pats trade for Crosby and he breaks the sack record and is DPOY of the year and the Pats fail to win the Super Bowl that he was a bad trade just shows my point is valid. Your argument is ridiculous. BTW, Crosby breaking the sack record and being DPOY on the Patriots defense isn't much hyperbolizing since it is conceivable with Barmore and Williams rushing inside and Gonzalez locking down the other team's #1 WR.

 

[Rob0729]

That’s what he does when he doesn’t like a deal or a trade. He sets up the unrealistic standard that “you have to win the Super Bowl or the trade was a disaster.”

It blew up in his face 5 years ago when he spent all season criticizing the Bucs saying they had to win the Super Bowl or signing Brady was a disaster and a failure - then they did win the Super Bowl.

Nice to see the same intellectually bankrupt strategy still with him.

It is crazy that he thinks that if the Pats traded for Crosby and he breaks the single season sack record and is DPOY that trading for him would be stupid if the Pats didn't win the Super Bowl.