Bedard: let six free agents walk

[Ring 6]

Bedard really lost me when he suggested replacing Welker and Lloyd with possibly Danny Amedola and Josh Cribbs.

He means the Josh Cribs who had 7 catches for 63 yards in 16 games last year? He means the guy who's career year was 41 catches for 518 yards and 4 TDs. The guy is a great special teams player, but he is a back up at best as a WR. If the Pats resigned Welker and Edelman and keep Lloyd, he would be the #4 WR at best.

Amedola could be great in McDaniels' system, but the guy has played 12 games in the last two years. He missed five games last season and 15 games the year before. You cannot go into the season as him as your anointed #1 WR. You can't count on him lasting 16 games.

Although I am not on board with letting Welker and Lloyd go, I think the Pats will have to consider giving up the first rounder and going after Victor Cruz if they let both go. They will have to make a splash at WR in free agency if they let both go and he is the only guy that really fits in the system with big production potential in free agency is Cruz (IMHO). The Giants will likely tender him the highest tender and it will take a first to get him. Not advocating this move, but it may be the only logical way to replacing both Welker and Lloyd assuming they don't hit big in the draft (as others pointed out, the Pats haven't done so with WR in a long time).

I would prefer to leave the strengths alone, and fix the weaknesses. I think it is silly to take a season long strength and blame one loss on it, and even sillier to misjudge what the issue was in that game.

 

[Ring 6]

I could see letting Welker go if you thought he's starting to show the wear of being a high volume slot guy for all these years. I don't get letting Welker and Lloyd go at the same time (esp. over a paltry $3m) for all the disappointment in Lloyd, he had 900+ yards and produced against good defenses. Just what we needed him for really. I also think the idea of drafting a WR high is a sketchy one to replace Welker. Aside from Branch, who is decidedly NOT the type of WR people are looking to bring in, has our high round drafting of WRs to stretch the field been very productive at all? (Bethel, Chad Jackson, Tate).

Well, we haven't drafted any high. 2nd round WRs are shaky or they wouldn't be in the second round. The worst argument you can make is 2 times out of 3 we picked the wrong guy out of a group of flawed choices in round 2. Tate at 82 doesn't doesn't belong in the discussion.
We have no clue how this organization would do at evaluating top level WRs in the draft, good or bad.

Still too many holes on the defense to whiff on a pick like that (and I'm pretty confident they'll whiff again there, seems like a scouting hole to me or poor skillset fit with the QB, who isn't changing).

Again they have never 'whiffed' on a 1st round WR.

You could potentially make an argument for Bowe, because of the size fit and familiarity with Daboll.

Famiarity with Daboll is meaningless, character issues are not.

But in the draft? I think that's a mistake. Press corner, and interior line help for me please. The one glaring need this team has in my mind is the inability to rush the passer up the middle.

There are many positions we could use a stud player drafted in the 1st round. During the length of that players contract those needs will also change.
Unless its QB, TE or maybe RB, we should draft the best guy on the board.

 

[Rob0729]

I would prefer to leave the strengths alone, and fix the weaknesses. I think it is silly to take a season long strength and blame one loss on it, and even sillier to misjudge what the issue was in that game.

I am not advocating changing the strength. I am just saying if the Pats did listen to Bedard's advise, what is the best option.

BTW, I didn't hear anyone complaining about the receivers after the Pats demolished the Texans' defense a week earlier. In fact, the storyline by fans and the media was the Pats have so many weapons on offense that they can overcome the loss of Gronk to win the Super Bowl. A week later it is Lloyd sucks and the Pats are missing a dynamic WR who can stretch the field.

 

[Deus Irae]

...BTW, I didn't hear anyone complaining about the receivers after the Pats demolished the Texans' defense a week earlier. In fact, the storyline by fans and the media was the Pats have so many weapons on offense that they can overcome the loss of Gronk to win the Super Bowl. A week later it is Lloyd sucks and the Pats are missing a dynamic WR who can stretch the field.

That's why attempts at dispassionate analysis is so much better than simple reaction. Once you've gone past cheering/sobbing about the game and start trying to look forward, reactionary Chicken Littling/panic and reactionary homerism/exultation are two sides of the same bad coin. This board gets too much of both. "They Suck!" doesn't really help figure out what's happening.

 

[Ring 6]

I am not advocating changing the strength. I am just saying if the Pats did listen to Bedard's advise, what is the best option.

BTW, I didn't hear anyone complaining about the receivers after the Pats demolished the Texans' defense a week earlier. In fact, the storyline by fans and the media was the Pats have so many weapons on offense that they can overcome the loss of Gronk to win the Super Bowl. A week later it is Lloyd sucks and the Pats are missing a dynamic WR who can stretch the field.

Its a mob mentality. Everyone is upset at a loss, people throw out a poorly conceived analysis of the problem with a good scapegoat, and it takes off.
All of sudden the offense that has been one of the best in NFL history is a 'gimmick' 'smalll ball' 'mickey mouse' and the only one in the history of the league that dominates but plays teams in the playoffs that share their Kryptonite supply with each other.

 

[Brady2Moss]

Its a mob mentality. Everyone is upset at a loss, people throw out a poorly conceived analysis of the problem with a good scapegoat, and it takes off.
All of sudden the offense that has been one of the best in NFL history is a 'gimmick' 'smalll ball' 'mickey mouse' and the only one in the history of the league that dominates but plays teams in the playoffs that share their Kryptonite supply with each other.

It isn't an all of a sudden knee jerk like the kool aid drinkers like to throw at us posters that see problems with the offense. It has happened every single time this offense has played a good defense in the playoffs since 2007. EVERY TIME! The only exceptions are the Broncos in 2010 and the Texans in 2012 both defenses that schematically do not match up even remotely well against the patriots.

I'm getting real sick of posters here acting like the offense is great because of regular season numbers and 2 blowouts against crap competition. Every time a playoff loss comes you ignore the flaws that are discussed every year (NO VIABLE OUTSIDE THREAT, DEFENSES CLOG MIDDLE OF FIELD).

It's a poorly conceived analysis to think everythings ok with the offense and not noticing the trend that's slapping you in the face every January since Jan '08.

 

[Ring 6]

Bedard thinks that Donald Thomas will get 'starter money' and Brandon Lloyd should be cut to save 2.5mill on the cap, reducing the roster to Matt Slater as the only WR under contract.
:bricks:

 

[MTaylorJ1]

Well, we haven't drafted any high. 2nd round WRs are shaky or they wouldn't be in the second round. The worst argument you can make is 2 times out of 3 we picked the wrong guy out of a group of flawed choices in round 2. Tate at 82 doesn't doesn't belong in the discussion.
We have no clue how this organization would do at evaluating top level WRs in the draft, good or bad.



Again they have never 'whiffed' on a 1st round WR.


Famiarity with Daboll is meaningless, character issues are not.



There are many positions we could use a stud player drafted in the 1st round. During the length of that players contract those needs will also change.
Unless its QB, TE or maybe RB, we should draft the best guy on the board.

I never said 1st round, I said high round, for me that's 1-3, should have been more clear. Most players in the draft have a flaw or two. Have they had a Mike Williams or Charles Rodgers level of whiff? No. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Familiarity with our offensive coaches, their terminology and mindset is in no way meaningless. Were his character concerns any better/worse than Moss's?

In my mind, our defense right now lacks a few definitive things, I don't see the same from our offense.

 

[MTaylorJ1]

It isn't an all of a sudden knee jerk like the kool aid drinkers like to throw at us posters that see problems with the offense. It has happened every single time this offense has played a good defense in the playoffs since 2007. EVERY TIME! The only exceptions are the Broncos in 2010 and the Texans in 2012 both defenses that schematically do not match up even remotely well against the patriots.

I'm getting real sick of posters here acting like the offense is great because of regular season numbers and 2 blowouts against crap competition. Every time a playoff loss comes you ignore the flaws that are discussed every year (NO VIABLE OUTSIDE THREAT, DEFENSES CLOG MIDDLE OF FIELD).

It's a poorly conceived analysis to think everythings ok with the offense and not noticing the trend that's slapping you in the face every January since Jan '08.

Two of those playoff loses came with THE viable outside threat.

Their best offensive performance in a playoff LOSS came in the only loss Welker and Gronk were both healthy. In 2011 and 2012 Gronk wasn't nearly 100%.

There is no common thread between the 5 playoff losses other than they didn't make enough plays to win.

 

[Jimke]

Indeed.....

Under Belichick, the problem has rarely, if ever, been who the Patriots have let go. It's almost always been the inability to find an adequate replacement for that player, the timing of the move, or both.

A good example of this was the situation with regard to Meriweather and Sanders. The Branch and Givens situation had similar results but the Patriots did not foresee Branch not honoring the last year of his contract.

 

[Ring 6]

It isn't an all of a sudden knee jerk like the kool aid drinkers like to throw at us posters that see problems with the offense. It has happened every single time this offense has played a good defense in the playoffs since 2007. EVERY TIME!

No "it" hasnt.
First, the Texans were a better defense this year than the Ravens.
The Broncos were a better defense last year than the Giants.
The only way your statement is correct is if your definition of 'good defense' is one that we lost to and 'bad defense' is one we defeated.

The only exceptions are the Broncos in 2010 and the Texans in 2012 both defenses that schematically do not match up even remotely well against the patriots.

Once again, an argument that dismisses facts that don't support it is a weak argument.
You are now saying 'good defenses' that beat us, that werent really very good are better than ones that didn't beat us that were better, because you have decided its a scheme thing.

I'm getting real sick of posters here acting like the offense is great because of regular season numbers and 2 blowouts against crap competition.

I'm sorry, but facts are facts. Taking one game, redefining things to suit your argument then overlooking the success the scheme has had over a long period of time is silly, so your illness is self-inflicted.

Every time a playoff loss comes you ignore the flaws that are discussed every year (NO VIABLE OUTSIDE THREAT, DEFENSES CLOG MIDDLE OF FIELD).

Umm, because that isn't what happened.

It's a poorly conceived analysis to think everythings ok with the offense and not noticing the trend that's slapping you in the face every January since Jan '08.

There is no trend. The team has lost 5 playoff games in 5 different situations against 5 different teams, in many cases with very different personell.
Everything is only OK when the team wins the SB, but not winning the SB doesn't mean your poor analysis of what went wrong is suddenly correct.

 

[Deus Irae]

It isn't an all of a sudden knee jerk like the kool aid drinkers like to throw at us posters that see problems with the offense. It has happened every single time this offense has played a good defense in the playoffs since 2007. EVERY TIME! The only exceptions are the Broncos in 2010 and the Texans in 2012 both defenses that schematically do not match up even remotely well against the patriots.

When you start throwing out multiple exceptions for an already too small sample size, you demonstrate your argument to be worthless.

I'm getting real sick of posters here acting like the offense is great because of regular season numbers and 2 blowouts against crap competition. Every time a playoff loss comes you ignore the flaws that are discussed every year (NO VIABLE OUTSIDE THREAT, DEFENSES CLOG MIDDLE OF FIELD).

I'm sick of people who don't bother to think about their posts and refuse to use their brains, instead going knee jerk about Welker/Brady/whomever, either in praise or negativity. I'm willing to bet that we'll both continue to be "tired" of those things, because they're not going to change any time soon. As someone who's been pointing to both problems and strengths for many years, I've seen the same patterns repeat year after year:

Chicken Little - "We need massive changes! Player A sucks and needs to be cut immediately!"

Homer - "That wasn't a problem. The only problem was ......"

Both have been wrong, repeatedly. Every loss has had multiple reasons, and every win has been the product of multiple positives, as well.

It's a poorly conceived analysis to think everythings ok with the offense and not noticing the trend that's slapping you in the face every January since Jan '08.

It's a far worse analysis to argue the wrong "trend", which is what so many have been doing this offseason.

 

[goheels22002]

Mankins is breaking down --ought to be worth a 1?
Guy who actually has been broken down his entire career here is worth keeping though and paying top dollar too.

This baffles me.

Mankins would bring a #4 probably but would put $12 million of dead money on the cap. He's not going anywhere.

Vollmer would have to sign for a great hometown discount to stay. He should take the best deal he can find.

 

[TomPatriot]

An offseason to-do list for the New England Patriots - Sports - The Boston Globe

I hate this article. There are many points to make here, but here are two questions. Who on the free agent market is better at running medium out routes than Lloyd? Why should they pay Woodhead when they have Vereen and Demps?

 

[DaBruinz]

I would start the rebuild now I would offer talib 3 years at 21 million with most of the cash pushed back to protect myself to see if he stays on the patriots way.
I would aggressively go after another quality defensive back as well such as Sean smith at about 5 million a year. Over 3 yrs.
I would let Welker cash his last big paycheck somewhere else.
I would resign Edelman at about 2 million a year over 4 years.
I would restructure the contracts of Brady Mankins and Wilfork.
I would offer Danny woodhead 2.5 million for 2 years but I see him walking cause all the depth and vareen and demps filling in his role.
I let vollmer walk his injury history and the big amount of cap space he would eat up plus the great job scar does we can find someone to fill his role.
I offer the kitchen sink to the Vikings for Percy harvin he's insanely talented very flexible in scheme and a home run threat everytime. Plus belichick was rumored to love him. Our 1 st could get that done. If the Vikings and Harvin are looking for a change.
I sign DHB the man has speed and maybe we can ressurect his career like we did for Moss
2 million a 1 yr prove it kind of deal great situation for him. I don't stop there I pick up a receiver like Louis Murphy off the scrap heap and kick the tires on him.
The Patriots may or may not go all in on the reed sweepstakes I'd personally pass and bring in Adrian Wilson from Arizona I would trade up to a 4th round pick and bring in this proven leader and warrior to reshape the toughness In the secondary the same way Harrison did.
I feel like this is a bad taste in Belichicks mouth and he will be incredibly aggressive to try to get past very good to get to elite status.
2 idle thoughts Mallett to the Cowboys for a high pick and if Spikes isn't in the long term plans mainly with his lack of coverage ability and the true need for a thumper becoming less and less maybe they like Fletcher to take over that role. And trade him for a few mid picks. .

Thoughts?

First and foremost, the Pats have only $18 million in cap space. Your contracts total over $17 million and that is not including Adrian Wilson.

You say "restructure" the contracts of Brady, Mankins and Wilfork, but offer nothing on how they should be restructured to free up cap room.

What makes you think that the Cowboys are interested in Mallett for a high round pick?

How is it that you think that Fletcher is an adequate replacement for Spikes? Fletcher has landed on the IR each of the last 2 years. The breakdown of runs to passes by opponents was 415 to 594. Or 41.2% to 58.8%. So, over 40% of the plays were running plays. And the Pats were able to hold opponents UNDER 4 YPC. Spikes was a big reason for that.

Also if Spikes isn't needed by us, what makes you think that he'll garner 2 mid round picks in return?

 

[DaBruinz]

I hate this article. There are many points to make here, but here are two questions. Who on the free agent market is better at running medium out routes than Lloyd? Why should they pay Woodhead when they have Vereen and Demps?

Could you please show everyone what Vereen and Demps have accomplished that make them better than Woodhead?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Bedard: Lets go 7-9

but think of the 2014 draft picks we'll get!

 

[Ring 6]

Could you please show everyone what Vereen and Demps have accomplished that make them better than Woodhead?

Vereen played well enough when he was out there this year that we can afford to let Woodhead go, unless he wants to stay for cheap and share his role.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Resign Arrington? What value does he bring other than just running around?

Pats would get penalized for only 10 men on the field

 

[DaBruinz]

Arrington was horrible as an outside corner, but, when he was playing the "STAR" position, Arrington was pretty damn good. That and special teams would be the only reason to bring him back. But that means Vet minimum-1yr deal and let him fight it out in camp with Dowling and others.