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

Rob0729 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are making up pretend arguments.
When did I call a trade bad?
You admit the goal of the trade is to win the SB. So by definition if you don’t win a SB the trade was not successful.
Again you keep coming up with problems that trading picks and spending huge $ on one guy make it more difficult to overcome.
If you use all of your resources on an EDGE player and lose because the OL, you lost because you used your resources wrong.

You are arguing about “winning the trade” and I am arguing about putting tr best team you can on the field. You are overlooking as many as half a dozen other upgrades that you can make if you ding go all in on Crosby. Crosby improving one unit or facet of the team at the expense of many other acquisitions is a much deeper analysis than how did he play and what excuses can you make.

Toofy said:

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 .

Click to expand...

While they are both very productive. Crosby is 3 years younger, so theoretically you could have him with great production for longer. If we sign Hendrickson we are looking at filling a big hole again next year.

I am not in the trade for Crosby boat, although I love the player. This team has, imo, too many holes to splurge on Crosby.

Moses is old
Spillane is 31
I like Hawkins but he can be upgraded and is a FA
Henry is older and possibly diminishing skills/Dippre is an unknown
Landry is older and coming of an injury
Chaisson is a FA

I think they need to keep all picks to bring in top young players, the good draft pipeline was started last year and hopefully after another good draft they would be in a better position to trade for top talent if they so desire. I don't think right now is the right time.

Rob0729 said:

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.

Click to expand...

When did I say stupid?
You said the goal is to win the SB.
In your example did the trade help achieve the goal?
Would spending 30 mill differently and using the draft picks you traded have been better?
History says yes.

XLIX said:

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.

Click to expand...

The point of mortgaging the future is to win a SB.

What blew up in my face? I never criticized the Bucs. It’s true that Tampa signing Brady would have set them back, and they would need to win a SB to make it worthwhile, which they did. You appear to be making things up here.

If theyre asking for multiple firsts id tell them to take a long walk on a short pier

BennyBledsoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

You must have hated spending so much on $10 AAV players or more last year. Surely, we would have been better off not signing Williams and Spillane. NOT!

dliverey44 said:

While they are both very productive. Crosby is 3 years younger, so theoretically you could have him with great production for longer. If we sign Hendrickson we are looking at filling a big hole again next year.

I am not in the trade for Crosby boat, although I love the player. This team has, imo, too many holes to splurge on Crosby.

Moses is old
Spillane is 31
I like Hawkins but he can be upgraded and is a FA
Henry is older and possibly diminishing skills/Dippre is an unknown
Landry is older and coming of an injury
Chaisson is a FA

I think they need to keep all picks to bring in top young players, the good draft pipeline was started last year and hopefully after another good draft they would be in a better position to trade for top talent if they so desire. I don't think right now is the right time.

Click to expand...

Crosby would be a really great acquisition for a team competing for the AFC Championship. The question is cost. 2 first is out of the question unless the deal is made after the draft with the 2027 and 2028 firsts.

Surely Crossby is worth $28M AAV for the next 4 years of his contract.

mgteich said:

Crosby would be a really great acquisition for a team competing for the AFC Championship. The question is cost. 2 first is out of the question unless the deal is made after the draft with the 2027 and 2028 firsts.

Surely Crossby is worth $28M AAV for the next 4 years of his contract.

Click to expand...

Crossby is coming out of injury. How do we know he is the same player. Remember sanu trade .

Von miller and bosa were useless for bills. Landry last year for us and prolly for next year is going to be practically useless.

It's a risk , but is it worth it ? What happens if you expend a 1st and 2nd and crossby is shell of himself and you waste two years and now you have to pay Maye and gonzo and don't have developed assets.

This year is a rebuild year . I don't care what we think of last year. Post season showed us how uneven the team is .

Just build the team ground up and when we have a core of 8-10 young players who have showed production and are primed for growth , go for acquisitions . Now is not the time.

As mentioned above , too many vets on this team . We need to get younger before we start to trade .

Love him, but we need an offense.

Toofy said:

As mentioned above , too many vets on this team . We need to get younger before we start to trade .

Click to expand...

We were the 9th YOUNGEST team in the NFL last year.
==========
Many of the OLD vets are unlikely to be here for more than another year: Landry, Bradbury, Moses. Mapu, Diggs, Tavai, Onwenu

The need in 2026 is to get BETTER.

It is OK to be 9th youngest or even 16th youngest.

I am 100% fine if we add older veterans for 3-year contracts at a position of need ALONG with adding our young draftees. That's what we do every year and what we should continue to do.

So is a guy like this worth the second round pick vs what you will have to pay for Crosby?

Family said:

So is a guy like this worth the second round pick vs what you will have to pay for Crosby?

Click to expand...

Fourth Rounder maybe Fifth C'mon Fam.

Ring 6 said:

You are making up pretend arguments.
When did I call a trade bad?
You admit the goal of the trade is to win the SB. So by definition if you don’t win a SB the trade was not successful.
Again you keep coming up with problems that trading picks and spending huge $ on one guy make it more difficult to overcome.
If you use all of your resources on an EDGE player and lose because the OL, you lost because you used your resources wrong.

You are arguing about “winning the trade” and I am arguing about putting tr best team you can on the field. You are overlooking as many as half a dozen other upgrades that you can make if you ding go all in on Crosby. Crosby improving one unit or facet of the team at the expense of many other acquisitions is a much deeper analysis than how did he play and what excuses can you make.

Click to expand...

I admitted that every move the Patriots' make in the offseason is to win a Super Bowl. By your argument, if the Pats sign someone to the practice squad and the Pats don't win the Super Bowl, it is an "unsuccessful" use of the practice squad spot. Personally, I am shocked that Vrabel could sign Chism to the practice squad and the Pats lost the Super Bowl and he and the rest of the regime have a job today.

You can make the argument that using the capital needed to get Crosby can be used better elsewhere, but if the Pats do trade for Crosby and they don't win a Super Bowl with him it doesn't mean that they would have if the Pats didn't trade for him and they used that capital elsewhere.

No matter what the Pats do this offseason doesn't guarantee a Super Bowl title even if they have a perfect offseason. They could literally do everything right. Hit on all their draft picks. Fill every one of their needs including depth through free agency and not even get to the Super Bowl. They could have the most talented team top to bottom and never win the Super Bowl.

That is how it works. The Pats have certainly beaten teams better than them to win the Super Bowl and lost to lesser teams to be eliminated from the Super Bowl contention.

Ring 6 said:

When did I say stupid?
You said the goal is to win the SB.
In your example did the trade help achieve the goal?
Would spending 30 mill differently and using the draft picks you traded have been better?
History says yes.

Click to expand...

Trading for Crosby would absolutely help the Pats move towards their goal of winning a Super Bowl. But there isn't a move or series of moves that can guarantee a Super Bowl win.

Again, the Pats could assemble a historically top team and not win the Super Bowl. See the 2007 Patriots.

Rob0729 said:

I admitted that every move the Patriots' make in the offseason is to win a Super Bowl. By your argument, if the Pats sign someone to the practice squad and the Pats don't win the Super Bowl, it is an "unsuccessful" use of the practice squad spot. Personally, I am shocked that Vrabel could sign Chism to the practice squad and the Pats lost the Super Bowl and he and the rest of the regime have a job today.

You can make the argument that using the capital needed to get Crosby can be used better elsewhere, but if the Pats do trade for Crosby and they don't win a Super Bowl with him it doesn't mean that they would have if the Pats didn't trade for him and they used that capital elsewhere.

No matter what the Pats do this offseason doesn't guarantee a Super Bowl title even if they have a perfect offseason. They could literally do everything right. Hit on all their draft picks. Fill every one of their needs including depth through free agency and not even get to the Super Bowl. They could have the most talented team top to bottom and never win the Super Bowl.

That is how it works. The Pats have certainly beaten teams better than them to win the Super Bowl and lost to lesser teams to be eliminated from the Super Bowl contention.

Click to expand...

Come on. The discussion is about putting massive resources into one player.
I think we agreed you don’t do that with a goal of just getting better. You are comparing that to who is on the practice squad? Is that dumb or disingenuous?

Let me put this a different way. If you trade away premium draft picks and oat too dollar for 1 player, you are doing it with the goal of winning the SB. If you don’t win the SB your overall plan, built heavily around that one move your overall plan failed.
If you do not trade for the player and devote massive resources you are doing that for long term success rather than go for broke.
If you don’t win the SB the plan may not be a failure because you may have taken steps toward winning in the future by building out a complete roster.

I’m really shocked you are arguing against that reality.

Rob0729 said:

Trading for Crosby would absolutely help the Pats move towards their goal of winning a Super Bowl. But there isn't a move or series of moves that can guarantee a Super Bowl win.

Again, the Pats could assemble a historically top team and not win the Super Bowl. See the 2007 Patriots.

Click to expand...

They THINK it would if they do. If they sing they were wrong and very likely would be better off building out a roster for the long term.

Family said:

So is a guy like this worth the second round pick vs what you will have to pay for Crosby?

Click to expand...

OK whatever.

Is this better than giving a 1st and 3rd for Crosby (that's what I think it will take from our draft position)

Toofy said:

Crossby is coming out of injury. How do we know he is the same player. Remember sanu trade .

Von miller and bosa were useless for bills. Landry last year for us and prolly for next year is going to be practically useless.

It's a risk , but is it worth it ? What happens if you expend a 1st and 2nd and crossby is shell of himself and you waste two years and now you have to pay Maye and gonzo and don't have developed assets.

This year is a rebuild year . I don't care what we think of last year. Post season showed us how uneven the team is .

Just build the team ground up and when we have a core of 8-10 young players who have showed production and are primed for growth , go for acquisitions . Now is not the time.

As mentioned above , too many vets on this team . We need to get younger before we start to trade .

Click to expand...

Crosby had a meniscus tear. He could have played at the end of the season with the tear. The Raiders just decided to shut him down against his wishes. He just had a meniscus trim surgery which means it wasn't a major tear.

The only long term concern with a meniscus tear and this type of surgery is that he could develop bone on bone issues over years of playing. But we are talking 5-10 years of playing with a repaired meniscus. If it was a major tear, it might be an issue.

JaDaveon Clowney had microfracture surgery for his torn meniscus in 2014 which a more major surgery and played for over a decade.

Ring 6 said:

Come on. The discussion is about putting massive resources into one player.
I think we agreed you don’t do that with a goal of just getting better. You are comparing that to who is on the practice squad? Is that dumb or disingenuous?

Let me put this a different way. If you trade away premium draft picks and oat too dollar for 1 player, you are doing it with the goal of winning the SB. If you don’t win the SB your overall plan, built heavily around that one move your overall plan failed.
If you do not trade for the player and devote massive resources you are doing that for long term success rather than go for broke.
If you don’t win the SB the plan may not be a failure because you may have taken steps toward winning in the future by building out a complete roster.

I’m really shocked you are arguing against that reality.

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll agree that you don't trade for arguably one of the top three edge rushers in the league where edge pass rush is your biggest need as a goal to get better. What kind of fool addresses your biggest deficiency by acquiring one of the best players in the league at that position. That is stupid.

And I get your point. I just don't necessarily agree with it. Draft picks are crap shoots. No guarantee that the Patriots would hit with any of the picks they would give up to get Crosby. From what Adam Schefter said, the general belief is this draft sucks and teams are more willing to trade for talent. And the Pats have the 31st pick in the first round which is a spot where there is no guarantee of drafting an impact player.

And who said the Pats are going to trade for Crosby and not address other needs? That is where you cannot see the forest through the trees. The Pats have plenty of cap space and can easily get more. They can acquire as many or more impact players in free agency this year as last year if they do it right. And they still have a lot of draft picks.

The fact is that Eliot Wolf said they inquired about Crosby before the trade deadline. That means everyone was on board to trade for him at the right price. They knew the price would be big.

Another fact is edge pass rushers don't grow on trees.

Again, I am not necessarily advocating for this move. I just think the Pats can trade for Crosby and still have a complete team. Hell, they might even be able to make a lesser trade or two like for someone like Cole Kmet (not advocating that either, but that is just one of the rumors out there right now).

Ring 6 said:

They THINK it would if they do. If they sing they were wrong and very likely would be better off building out a roster for the long term.

Click to expand...

The Pats can trade for Crosby AND build out the roster if they wish. Don't act like if they trade for Crosby, they are done with building. It isn't either trade for Crosby or build out the roster.