Faulk Should Be Traded

[Clonamery]

That said, we can't trade him because no one will want him. This reminds me of the Trade Rohan and trade Pass threads.
QUOTE]

Only takes one burro......

 

[JackBauer]

Faulk at best has one year left in him. Don't lose young talent to squeeze out that last year.

How on earth could you POSSIBLY know this?

 

[spacecrime]

That said, we can't trade him because no one will want him. This reminds me of the Trade Rohan and trade Pass threads.
QUOTE]

Only takes one burro......

I forgot which burro gave we traded Davey to....

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Thanks for the compliment, it's not often anyone calls me "good and savvy."

To those who insist on Faulk's importance - I think you're over stating his case. Since Dillon arrived in NE, Faulk has averaged 10 touches per games played (rushes and passes caught) for a combined 5yds/touch. Plug 10 touches/game for LoMo (it will likely be more) into the game plan and even if you take five touches away from Dillon and give them to Lomo then the other five have come from Faulk's total. You might argue we will run more this year and that will lead to more touches for everyone (though Faulk's 10 touches/game include 2004 when we ran quite a bit) but it makes more sense to think Maroney will get the addtional touches not Faulk. And what about Mills? Won't he get a few of what would have been Faulk's plays?

So Faulk's 5 touches per game certainly aren't worth the money he's getting and how big a drop off in total offensive production could occur by plugging just about anyone into such a small hole.

I started this thread to make the case for Faulk's diminished value to the team and what it is this team needs more than his output. Simply because I haven't come up with a name to trade him for doesn't discount my postulate outright. You have to start by assessing your own players before you go out and make a trade, correct?

 

[spacecrime]

How on earth could you POSSIBLY know this?

The same way you could POSSIBLY know he has two or more good years left.

His value is third down only, speed out of the backfield on screen passes.

There isn't anything he can do that a younger guy can't.

Every year people say this guy or that guy or the other guy is NEEDED, we CAN'T do without him. We'll go 0-16 without MILLOY, We can't stop the run without TED WASHINTON.

Every year player leave. Are you telling me that Faulk is more valuable to this team than David Givens? Adma Vinatieri? WMG?

We lost them and I don't see BB and SP giving up the season.

We have some good players, but please stop with all this "We NEED the guy." We don't.

 

[Clonamery]

I forgot which burro gave we traded Davey to....

Clarification:

Only takes one burro to start a 'Let's Trade...' thread.

 

[primetime]

Kevin Faulk for Brian Urlacher.

Fair trade for both sides.

In all seriousness, he's worth alot more to the Pats than to any other team. He's also one of the best change of pace backs in the league and I expect him to even line up at WR with the lack of depth there once in awhile.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

To appease those who insist upon trade partners to add credibility to my plea to trade Faulk, here are some possibilities, some of them requiring tinkering with draft picks, but not all are of equal desirability, so take it easy...

Redskins- who have no 3rd down back, for Brandon Lloyd
Cowboys - for Patrick Crayton or Akin Ayodele
Eagles - for Greg Lewis, even for Gaffney. Mahe complicates this move
but Faulk is an upgrade.
Seahawks - for Niko Koutouvides or Nate Burleson
Dolphins - longshot obviously, for Hodge or Spragans, whichever one that doesn't end up the starter.
Chiefs - for Kennsion, assuming Holmes is done
Texans - for Babin
Browns - who have too many LB's. They just traded Suggs and might want another Patriot influence. or how about Joe Jurevicius??

Surely there are other ideas overlooked here. Detroit still has too many WR's but after drafting Clahoun they wouldn't have much interest in Faulk - maybe a three way swap is in order!

 

[patsox23]

Thanks for the compliment, it's not often anyone calls me "good and savvy."

To those who insist on Faulk's importance - I think you're over stating his case.

If we are, then so is Belichick because I'm pretty much quoting him directly.

 

[upstater1]

To imply that without Faulk we can't run screens is totally numb.

What happens if Faulk is injured? Our season is down the tubes. I say that if Faulk goies on IR for the season we will be okay. We have Dillon, Graham, Watson, Thomas, Mills if Faulk is gone for hte season. It doesn't matter if he isn't here.

So, you want Dillon in there on 3rd down running screens? Watson, Thomas, Mills? Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Faulk is the guy who comes out of the backfield and makes great catches. He's got great hands. We have no othe player at that position who does the things he does.

 

[dhamz]

Faulk is a role player - a 3rd down back who plays that role very well. It is a big role in the Pats offense. He is great on screens, excellent making yards after catch, and does an excellent job picking up the blitz. There is no one else on the roster who can do it as well as he does.

He is going to bring less back in a trade than he gives the Pats. You could deal him for a day 2 pick or a deep reserve (see the Jets/Browns aborted trade). Is that worth what Faulk gives you? No way. Brandon Llloyd? Kennison? You aren't getting anywhere near that.

Player for player trades are rare in the NFL and what you usually end up with is the Bethel/Sullivan deal - your garbage out/someone else's garbage in.