Expected Transactions Before The Draft

[spacecrime]

We are indeed close on analysis. It is just a matter of what a top corner is worth. You may be closer. I am not reacted to you as much as to others who think Law is not worth what we paid Starks last year.

Is this the old we-made-a-mistake-and-over-paid-a-guy-last-year-so-let's-make-the-our-pay-standard-from-now-on school of thought?]

Seriously, I don't think Law is worth $3 million because we paid Starks $3 million and he wasn't worth it. I just don't see the connection. If anything, the Starks thing says to us: DON'T GIVE A LOT OF MONEY TO OLD CB'S WHO USED TO BE SHUT DOWN CORNERS!

 

[PSU]

Ray Lewis is a comin'

 

[mgteich]

bb disagrees. Law is likely to have a better year than any of our corners, and for a very good reason. At 33 and 34 (and 35 and 36) he is a much, much better corner.

You probably didn't want to re-sign OTIS either, or Tebucky.

But you're right, we shouldn't Law more than Starks because Law is better then Starks. We should pay law more than Starks because that's what bb thinks the value is of a player competing to start and Law is much, much better than that.

Is this the old we-made-a-mistake-and-over-paid-a-guy-last-year-so-let's-make-the-our-pay-standard-from-now-on school of thought?]

Seriously, I don't think Law is worth $3 million because we paid Starks $3 million and he wasn't worth it. I just don't see the connection. If anything, the Starks thing says to us: DON'T GIVE A LOT OF MONEY TO OLD CB'S WHO USED TO BE SHUT DOWN CORNERS!

 

[patsfan13]

bb disagrees. Law is likely to have a better year than any of our corners, and for a very good reason. At 33 and 34 (and 35 and 36) he is a much, much better corner.

You probably didn't want to re-sign OTIS either, or Tebucky.

But you're right, we shouldn't Law more than Starks because Law is better then Starks. We should pay law more than Starks because that's what bb thinks the value is of a player competing to start and Law is much, much better than that.

If we can get Law for Otis or Tebucky money then do it, not for $3M +. There are better ways to spend the money.

 

[shirtsleeve]

Ok, as to the first question: there may be a FA or 2 coming within the next week. I keep scanning the boards in anticipation. Not really expecting any barnburner signings, though. More journeymen who will not hurt the team.

As to how this thread has evolved: three words. 12 different starters. That is what we had last year in the secondary. If we go into this season unchanged in that area, its gonna be a long season. These guys are about as durable as my Gramma's china. This team is going to upgrade in the secondary this year. Perhaps not in talent, but definitely in durability. This may come through FA or the draft, but it will come.

 

[DaBruinz]

bb disagrees. Law is likely to have a better year than any of our corners, and for a very good reason. At 33 and 34 (and 35 and 36) he is a much, much better corner.

You probably didn't want to re-sign OTIS either, or Tebucky.

But you're right, we shouldn't Law more than Starks because Law is better then Starks. We should pay law more than Starks because that's what bb thinks the value is of a player competing to start and Law is much, much better than that.

MG -
Normally I would agree with you, but I find it absolutely laughable that you think that re-signing Tebucky can be related, in any way, to the potentia of re-signing Law. Jones is a stellar special teamer and that's it. He was dropped because he was lousy in coverage and lousy at open field tackles.

As for re-signing Otis, I seem to remember him not making it out of camp the last time he was brought back. And I was suprised when he was brought back the last time.

 

[BradyBirdYazOrr]

Ray Lewis is a comin'

Duck! Hes got a knife!

 

[DaBruinz]

Ok, as to the first question: there may be a FA or 2 coming within the next week. I keep scanning the boards in anticipation. Not really expecting any barnburner signings, though. More journeymen who will not hurt the team.

As to how this thread has evolved: three words. 12 different starters. That is what we had last year in the secondary. If we go into this season unchanged in that area, its gonna be a long season. These guys are about as durable as my Gramma's china. This team is going to upgrade in the secondary this year. Perhaps not in talent, but definitely in durability. This may come through FA or the draft, but it will come.

I find it absolutely amazing that people think that the Pats secondary is injury prone. I didn't realize that a CATASTROPHIC injury such as torn knee ligaments or high ankle sprain (which are also slightly torn ligaments) can be guarded against. Even Scott's shoulder injury could be classified as a catastrophic injury.

You can't measure durability in that way. If you don, you completely do not understand about football.

 

[lutontown_fc]

Alot of people seem to be over-reacting to the catastrophic amount of injuries we had grouped in one area of the field last year.

The replacements of replacements were getting injured - its not as if our 1st choice guys Hobbs, Gay, Samuel were shown to be out of their league in the NFL.

Id like to see a Safety taken in the first 4 rounds - someone #37 can tutor over the coming season to keep his mind busy while trying to return to the team himself.

I'd love to see Stallworth in a Pats uni - but maybe having Drew Brees is enough of a lure to keep him in N.O.

NM

 

[mgteich]

Tebucky is considered over the hill by folks here. In fact, he may still be among the best gunners in the league. He is to the special teams what Law is the defense. No, I did not mean to compare Tebucky's skills as a defensive back to Law's, then or now. And Tebucky left because he was a top STer and a mediocre part-time safety, certainly not worth $3.5M a year.

MG -
Normally I would agree with you, but I find it absolutely laughable that you think that re-signing Tebucky can be related, in any way, to the potentia of re-signing Law. Jones is a stellar special teamer and that's it. He was dropped because he was lousy in coverage and lousy at open field tackles.

As for re-signing Otis, I seem to remember him not making it out of camp the last time he was brought back. And I was suprised when he was brought back the last time.

 

[pats1]

Contiuning on with what DaBruinz and Lutontown said, the top 3 corners have shown to be fairly durable:

Hobbs played in all 16 games his rookie year, as well as both playoff games. His first start came November 13 and the rest of the season he was in that starting lineup.

Samuel played in 15 games this past year, missing that week 17 affair with the Dolphins. He started all of those 15, as well as both playoff games.

Samuel played in 13 games in 2004, just missing 3 games during that Buf-Kc-Bal-Cle stretch. He started 11 games, mainly after Poole and Law went down.

Samuel played in all 16 games in 2003, making one start.

Gay played in 15 games in 2004, making 11 starts.

The only bad year out of these three injury wise was last year for Gay. 5 games played, 2 starts, then an I.R. visit.

Hell, I can't remember Poteat being injured, either.


The I.R. for DBs looked like this in 2005:

Harrison - Week 4 (Nobody knows what will happen here.)

Chad Scott - Week 6 (Was forced to start in 2005 before being injured. Now is buried as the #6 CB)

Guss Scott - Week 7 (Was forced to start in 2005. Now is buried as the #7 S)

Poole - Week 8 (Now the Raiders' problem.)

Starks - Week 10 (Now the Raiders' problem.)

Gay - Week 11 [Was forced into starting as a safety in the Colts game. Now the nickel or dime back.)