Brandon Lloyd meeting with 49ers: Patriots are gonna blow it

[JackBauer]

Gonzalez coming in for meeting...hmm

My, the Glass-I-Dowling crowd will certainly love this.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

to those who watched the superbowl........how can you not want to add some WRs after watching that final drive.

god I want Lloyd on this team

Because apparently we turn into the Redskins and Brady turns into Sanchez. We are better off grabbing 4 fan favorite UDFA and hoping one works.

 

[Dagg]

We already have on player made of glass we dont need 2, pass on Glassolez.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't expect the offense to change that much under JMcD. I'm not going to say that Gronk will be burnt out at 27. Who knows.







An outside threat would help make the offense more flexible and explosive. After factoring in everything we know about Lloyd, I'd rather have Wallace.





I never said I would pay Wallace 10-12m a year either. I believe its appropriate to pay him less than that. If he wants VJax $$$ he won't come here. He is a 4th yr WR who is still developing. Hes shown improvement every year in the league and is a hard worker and is 5 years younger. In 2013 Gronk and AH are your possession guys and Wallace is your intermediate/deep threat for the next 5 years.



I don't argue against any of your points, Rob. Lloyd and Wallace are pretty equal.



In my mind, there is a difference between being a #2 WR and a 4th option in the offense. Again, coupled with Lloyd's track-record as a surly locker-room fellow and the role he would have in this offense and his age, I just can't agree, Rob.




I'd rather pay Wallace $6-7m per for 5 years, Rob with the understanding that WW will not be with the team next year when the WR franchise # is $11m. With that said, it's unlikey the Pats will get Wallace anyway if he wants a $20m in guarantees.

A few things:

1.) If you are not willing to pay Wallace $10-12 million a year, you are not willing to get Wallace. He will easily get that whether it is from the Pats or the Steelers if he gets a long term deal. Heck, Santonio Holmes got $9 million last year and he isn't the receiver that Wallace is. Vincent Jackson got $11.11 million and he is three years older. Wallace will easily get $10-11 million and it may take $12 million to make the Steelers not match it.
2.) It isn't an apples to apples comparison between Lloyd and Wallace. Yes, if the Pats could get Wallace for Lloyd money and no first round draft pick, I would want Wallace too. Unfortunately, Wallace will likely cost 70-100% more than Lloyd and require a first round compensation. When you factor that in, I would rather go with Lloyd although I won't be totally upset if the Pats go with Wallace instead.
3.) Wallace won't want a $20 million guarantee. He isn't going to take less than a $23-25 million guarantee. Holmes got $25 million in guarantees last year. Garcon got $22 million in guarantees this year. Vincent Jackson got $26 million in guarantees. If Wallace was only looking for $20 million in guarantees and would take less than $10 million a year, he would have a contract with the Steelers right now.
4.) Yes, Lloyd has a bad reputation, but even in Greg Bedard's piece he wrote that McDaniels has a great relationship with him and he is a different person when he is playing with McDaniels. Now that could change if he isn't happy with his role, but this locker room seems to be stronger than some of the other locker rooms Lloyd has played in with in the past.

 

[RobertWeathers]

A few things:

1.) If you are not willing to pay Wallace $10-12 million a year, you are not willing to get Wallace.

I agree.

He will easily get that whether it is from the Pats or the Steelers if he gets a long term deal.

Most likely.

Heck, Santonio Holmes got $9 million last year and he isn't the receiver that Wallace is.

The Jets are idiots!!

Vincent Jackson got $11.11 million and he is three years older. Wallace will easily get $10-11 million and it may take $12 million to make the Steelers not match it.

I think the Pats and Steelers have the same mindset. They like WRs, but don't believe in dumping a lot of money into them unless they are top end, proven talents. Hines Ward they gave big money too. That made sense.

2.) It isn't an apples to apples comparison between Lloyd and Wallace. Yes, if the Pats could get Wallace for Lloyd money and no first round draft pick, I would want Wallace too. Unfortunately, Wallace will likely cost 70-100% more than Lloyd and require a first round compensation. When you factor that in, I would rather go with Lloyd although I won't be totally upset if the Pats go with Wallace instead.

I don't disagree. Although if I'm giving up the 31st pick in the draft for a 26 year old WR who is a gamebreaker, that is compelling. However, paying 10-12m when I have 3 great receiving options and a HoF Qb, I'm not sure spending Wallace-dollars is necessary. However, if WW is not here in 2012 (does not sign, is traded) then I really need to think about doing the deal for Wallace.

3.) Wallace won't want a $20 million guarantee. He isn't going to take less than a $23-25 million guarantee. Holmes got $25 million in guarantees last year. Garcon got $22 million in guarantees this year. Vincent Jackson got $26 million in guarantees. If Wallace was only looking for $20 million in guarantees and would take less than $10 million a year, he would have a contract with the Steelers right now.

I agree. I threw out $20m. I'm sure its more. Don't hold me too hard to $20m. My point was big up-front payouts.

4.) Yes, Lloyd has a bad reputation, but even in Greg Bedard's piece he wrote that McDaniels has a great relationship with him and he is a different person when he is playing with McDaniels. Now that could change if he isn't happy with his role, but this locker room seems to be stronger than some of the other locker rooms Lloyd has played in with in the past.

Some of these WRs are head-cases. Lloyd has been with 5 teams since 2003. That scares the hell out of me. I think it's great that JMcD got the most out of him with Kyle Orton throwing to him but I'm not sold on JMcDs ability to lead men. Maybe he cow-towed to Lloyd in DEN and stroked his ego and thats why he produced. Who knows. My point is that the last guy on earth to stroke egos is BB.

All in all i'm not saying that I don't want Lloyd. I'm saying that he represents serious risk in messing up a locker room and an offense that is predicated on the open receiver and not a WR who wants his touches (which Lloyd is accused of).

Just a lot of risk with Lloyd from my view. His talent is undeniable....

 

[Wilfork#75]

At the end of the day, you had your 1, 2 and 3 "receivers" combined for almost 80% of the completions and 72% of the yards for an offense that put up 32 ppg.

Don't you think this is an issue though. This team completely lacks any form of balance in the passing game. We rely far too heavily on those 3 guys and while it might put up pretty numbers during the regular season, what happens when one of them goes down. In a hypothetical situation where someone goes down, say Gronk. In a big game, like the Super Bowl. How do you think the offense would perform.

If Gronk puts up another season like the one he just had, I think it would be a bad sign for the offense, because it would mean we still don't have balance or enough weapons. Gronk, Welker and Hernandez are all great players, but I think from a team perspective it would be better if they put up lower numbers, and another option stepped up. I would much rather have five 900 yard receivers, than two 1500 yard receivers, a 1000 yard receiver and a 500 yard receiver. That would mean that you can't just take away 1 option to slow down the offense, injuries don't have as dramatic effect, and guys won't be getting ridiculous contracts because they are putting up all time great season numbers.

I think this team really needs to add two, consistent and productive outside recievers, whether it is through free agency or the draft. And they don't even have to be a deep threat. People get caught up in spreading the field and making more room for Gronk and Hernandez. Why can't we just find guys who can beat single coverage on the outside. Our 3 guys all did pretty well with the amount of attention they received last year. So if they can produce at a similar level while teams continue to use excessive resources to stop them, we should have a great opportunity on the outside where all we need is receivers to beat 1 on 1 coverage. The problem with this team wasn't that we didn't have a deep threat to take the top off the defense, it was we didn't have anybody to take advantage of the positive match-ups our TE's caused.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, SMY is reporting that the Pats are negotiating with Lloyd and Condon:

As for receiver Brandon Lloyd, who is supposed to be visiting the 49ers, a league source said the Patriots are still working to get him into the fold.

Patriots add Fanene to the defensive line - The Boston Globe

 

[RobertWeathers]

Don't you think this is an issue though. This team completely lacks any form of balance in the passing game. We rely far too heavily on those 3 guys and while it might put up pretty numbers during the regular season, what happens when one of them goes down. In a hypothetical situation where someone goes down, say Gronk. In a big game, like the Super Bowl. How do you think the offense would perform.

Their 4th WR had 50 catches and they threw the ball 58% of the time. Whats wrong with that? You could make the case that their offense isn't balanced at all in terms of being able to make plays in the running game. I'm not saying that they need to run the ball 40 times a game, but I do believe that not having a RB that makes plays and threatens a defense is a problem. But yes, having a threat outside the hash marks that is more of a threat that Branch would have helped them in the SB. You could also say that if they had Gronk, the win. Injuries are part of the game.

If Gronk puts up another season like the one he just had, I think it would be a bad sign for the offense, because it would mean we still don't have balance or enough weapons. Gronk, Welker and Hernandez are all great players, but I think from a team perspective it would be better if they put up lower numbers, and another option stepped up. I would much rather have five 900 yard receivers, than two 1500 yard receivers, a 1000 yard receiver and a 500 yard receiver. That would mean that you can't just take away 1 option to slow down the offense, injuries don't have as dramatic effect, and guys won't be getting ridiculous contracts because they are putting up all time great season numbers.

I don't agree. I'd have no problem with an exact duplicate season from thsi offense. having another set of legs on the outside that Brady can be confident in can't hurt. I'd say that they need to upgrade the playmaking in the backfield just as much as a outside WR and taking a load off of Brady for a few more years.

I think this team really needs to add two, consistent and productive outside recievers, whether it is through free agency or the draft. And they don't even have to be a deep threat. People get caught up in spreading the field and making more room for Gronk and Hernandez. Why can't we just find guys who can beat single coverage on the outside. Our 3 guys all did pretty well with the amount of attention they received last year. So if they can produce at a similar level while teams continue to use excessive resources to stop them, we should have a great opportunity on the outside where all we need is receivers to beat 1 on 1 coverage. The problem with this team wasn't that we didn't have a deep threat to take the top off the defense, it was we didn't have anybody to take advantage of the positive match-ups our TE's caused.

I'd have no problem adding a 2003 Branch and Givens. The question is cost, age, fit, attitude, etc.

 

[RobertWeathers]

BTW, SMY is reporting that the Pats are negotiating with Lloyd and Condon:



Patriots add Fanene to the defensive line - The Boston Globe

BB and Condon negotiating is the equivalent to Obama and Exxon agreeing on oil production levels.

 

[JoeShmoe]

The problem with this team wasn't that we didn't have a deep threat to take the top off the defense, it was we didn't have anybody to take advantage of the positive match-ups our TE's caused.

I agree, I watched Branch and Ocho last year and they just can get separation. Unless it's a desperately bad CB. Branch makes up for it to a small degree with those timing routes and screens but defenders aren't scared of him outside the numbers.

 

[Wilfork#75]

Their 4th WR had 50 catches and they threw the ball 58% of the time. Whats wrong with that? You could make the case that their offense isn't balanced at all in terms of being able to make plays in the running game. I'm not saying that they need to run the ball 40 times a game, but I do believe that not having a RB that makes plays and threatens a defense is a problem. But yes, having a threat outside the hash marks that is more of a threat that Branch would have helped them in the SB. You could also say that if they had Gronk, the win. Injuries are part of the game.

I don't think there is any doubt that if Gronk is healthy that they win that game. But like you said, injuries are part of the game, so you have to have back-up plans. Sharing some of the responsibility on offense would reduce the impact of injuries to key players. Obviously any time Gronk isn't 100% its going to hurt your offense, but I think you can make the argument that if Branch was more effective we likely would have won the Super Bowl as well.

I don't agree. I'd have no problem with an exact duplicate season from thsi offense. having another set of legs on the outside that Brady can be confident in can't hurt. I'd say that they need to upgrade the playmaking in the backfield just as much as a outside WR and taking a load off of Brady for a few more years.

I think the heavy reliance on TE's last season was part of the struggles running the ball. Because the majority of our passing production was over the middle of the field, defenses were condensed, making it much harder to run up the middle. I that that is a big reason that BJGE's avg was 3.7 instead of 4.4.

I'd have no problem adding a 2003 Branch and Givens. The question is cost, age, fit, attitude, etc.

I completely agree. I would like to bring in Lloyd, but I wouldn't pay him crazy money. But I also wouldn't be against giving out a decent contract or using a high pick on a WR just because "they would be our 4th option". Its all about finding the right guys, but we do need guys.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

BB and Condon negotiating is the equivalent to Obama and Exxon agreeing on oil production levels.

Bill isn't the negotiator. He has the final say on what the negotiator offers. Floyd is the negotiator and he and Condon have likely done dozens of deals.

I think it's interesting if they are actually negotiating without a visit. If that's the case then Josh must have vouched for him. But all the article said was they were trying to get him in to the fold, which could mean in to visit. Oddly they signed Fanene without a visit...wonder who vouched for him.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think you can make the argument that if Branch was more effective we likely would have won the Super Bowl as well.

Agree 100%

I think the heavy reliance on TE's last season was part of the struggles running the ball. Because the majority of our passing production was over the middle of the field, defenses were condensed, making it much harder to run up the middle. I that that is a big reason that BJGE's avg was 3.7 instead of 4.4.

Part of it as well was speedy legs like Vereen and Ridley being hurt and rookies, Woody being a change of pace guy and BJGE being hurt.

I completely agree. I would like to bring in Lloyd, but I wouldn't pay him crazy money. But I also wouldn't be against giving out a decent contract or using a high pick on a WR just because "they would be our 4th option". Its all about finding the right guys, but we do need guys.

yep

 

[Clonamery]

Oddly they signed Fanene without a visit...wonder who vouched for him.

Ocho-5????

 

[JackBauer]

Oddly they signed Fanene without a visit...wonder who vouched for him.

Urban Meyer, perhaps.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Bill isn't the negotiator. He has the final say on what the negotiator offers. Floyd is the negotiator and he and Condon have likely done dozens of deals.

I think it's interesting if they are actually negotiating without a visit. If that's the case then Josh must have vouched for him. But all the article said was they were trying to get him in to the fold, which could mean in to visit. Oddly they signed Fanene without a visit...wonder who vouched for him.

Yep. I know BB isn't the direct guy. Figure of speech...

Gotta think BB and Kyle Whittingham are friendly as they drafted Christian Cox last year. Urban Meyer was coach there in 2004 when Fanene was a Jr. Kevin Bacon must be involved as well.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Urban Meyer, perhaps.

Urban's vouched for lots of Bill's picks, although I believe with mixed results...

 

[RobertWeathers]

Urban's vouched for lots of Bill's picks, although I believe with mixed results...

Very mixed with Spikes being the best selection by far and Jackson being the worst will Cunningham on his way.

 

[JackBauer]

True, but Fanane's no rook, either.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Still it's odd for Bill to do a deal without a sit down and eyes on evaluation and gut check.