Pats and Wilfork close to a deal for an extension?

[Joker]

oh yeah???...where? Engulf of Lottamexicanfoodo?

 

[oldrover]

LOL... I bet big Vince could keep a Taco Bell open all by himself.

 

[Brady6]

Cousin, I am a VW fan like most of us. But...........as this has become a passing league and the fact that Tommy Kelly is coming back to be a force in the middle, Kelly presents more of an inside rush, he agreed to a cut to play for the Pats, and we all have to admit he out-performed VW the first part of last season before the injury bug to both.Well is $8 million in salary for VW not better served on other positions?

The kids (Jones, Vellano and Siliga) played decent and the arrow is up especially on Siliga. I would suspect the Pats do Draft another D lineman as well. With Armstead(?)and Kelly coming back the rotation might be better than one might think.

I have two thoughts to make this D a little bit better and pump up the rush. A "solid" for VW might be to let him go, not placate him. If he does not want to be here, hope you do well in your future endeavors,Vince.

Here is maybe a solution:

Jared Allen for Vince Wilfork's Salary (+?) and two years. Allen has not signed yet because he wants to start. He is still elite. Ninkovitch is much smaller. He actually would make the perfect 3 down MLB to take Spikes' place. He is rangy, can cover better and can tackle. Leave Mayo outside and let Hightower be your alternate at LB or DE just like he did with the Tide. You have flexibility with Nink like BB used Vrabel. Bruschi made a good living here as an MLB. Nink might have similar characteristics.

Would not a front seven of Allen and Jones at the ends. Kelly and Siligia (?) at DT and Mayon, Ninkovitch and Collins be pretty formidable? Would not the pass rush both inside and out with Hightower and/or Collins blitzing be a tough match up? How about Ninkovitch blitzing from the gaps?

Would I in essence, swap Allen for VW? Absolutely if BB can figure out the best scenario to use his best players as he does. At this time Allen is the better player. He fits the need for added rush. He is not bad against the run. Allen can start for a few years yet which is his big thing. Chandler Jones won't be able to be doubled so that helps him, and you have Hightower and/ or Ninkovitch to slide into the DE position for snaps.

DW Toys

You focus so much on sacks you do not even recognize that the Patriots allowed 1901 yards on the ground in the 14 games after Wilfork was injured. Would the line be a better pass rushing line with Allen instead of Wilfork, yes but would it be better overall, I am not so sure of that.

We have pass rushers, Chandler Jones has just begun to touch his potential, Rob Ninkovich is solid, and players like Jamie Collins, Donta Hightower, Michael Buchanan, and Chris Jones have all shown potential to get after the QB when given the opportunity.

I like Siliga, I was actually one his biggest fans last season, but his sample size is limited and I am certainly not comfortable with him being the #1 NT for an entire season. In addition, you have to account for the value that Wilfork adds as a leader, he is to the defense what Brady is to the offense, a hard worker, and a smart player.

 

[Brady6]

LOL... I bet big Vince could keep a Taco Bell open all by himself.

Everyone acts as if Wilfork was this slim and trim guy to begin with who packed on a 100Lbs. and is a slobbering mess. Wilfork played most of his career here at around 360Lbs. and was the most effective NT in the NFL. He tore his Achilles, and obviously that limited his ability to perform cardio exercise, obviously Wilfork’s disposition is that of a heavy set person, he trains (hard) as an NFL player and is still over 360Lbs. so remove the cardio from his life for even a short time and I am sure the Lbs. find him fast. In addition, Fat always looks sloppier and more bloated than muscle and when we saw him (on the sidelines in mid-January), he was probably not able to do the core strength training he generally does so the weight he always carries looked different and that was perceived as him being fatter.

If Wilfork weighed 400Lbs., which is possible, a 10% loss of his body weight would bring him right back to his playing weight. He has the money, resources, and time to train, and have a special diet prepared for him, he has access to every possible nutritionist or trainer you can think of. Look at this picture of Wilfork right after his surgery; he was not exactly rocking a six-pack.

 

[Brady6]

Bianca has lost significant weight.

 

[lamafist]

Actually there is a lot they can do to help determine where Vince is health-wise AND athletically. There are lots of drills and exercises they can do to find out if he can still play without having to actually get on the field in a regular season game.

I'm sure the Pats have all of Vince's strength, flexibility, and quickness metrics from every season. It won't be a mystery to see if he's slipped, assuming he's healthy enough to participate in the drills.

While you may be right that this is a complicated situation. But that's only because of Vince's long and fruitful connection with the ownership, team and fans. As a simple football decision, I think its pretty simple.

You have an older player, who seemed to have visibly slipped in the few games he played before he was hurt. He is recovering from an injury that few players return from at the same level of play. He also carries the 3rd highest cap number on the team.....and you need cap space. C'mon DI, at this point in time there hasn't been a SINGLE report of what Vince's condition is, nor any speculation about when he will be able to participate in a practice.

Vince is a rarity in that after he got paid top dollar, he earned those dollars....until last season. As a long time Pats fan, I really, really, want Vince to stay. However, as a long time Pats fan, I'll be damned if I'm going to be held emotionally hostage while Vince has a hissy fit because reality has hit home.

The team not only needs to create some significant cap room before the draft, it is highly unlikely that Vince will have the ability to play to the level that would warrant him having an $11MM cap number....or even half that.

Right now Vince wants everyone to think that he's the injured party here, when he's clearly not. He's the one who is holding up the show here. When is Vince going to tell us when he'll be ready to play. At this point I'd accept an "indication" of when. In fact, as this drags on, this whole issue becomes less and less complicated.

You realize that you just said that the guy with the torn achilles tendon is "clearly not" the "injured party here," right?

A guy suffers a terrible injury playing for the Patriots, and then six months later, the team tells him he has to readily accept a pay cut, and when he balks, he's having a "hissy fit" and is holding the fans "emotionally hostage?"

Seriously?

Look, I get that the NFL's a business with little room for sentiment and loyalty, and that the Patriots need to do what's in the team's best interest, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that's not a bit effed up.

 

[kennyb]

You realize that you just said that the guy with the torn achilles tendon is "clearly not" the "injured party here," right?

A guy suffers a terrible injury playing for the Patriots, and then six months later, the team tells him he has to readily accept a pay cut, and when he balks, he's having a "hissy fit" and is holding the fans "emotionally hostage?"

Seriously?

Look, I get that the NFL's a business with little room for sentiment and loyalty, and that the Patriots need to do what's in the team's best interest, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that's not a bit effed up.

That's not "effed up" at all. That how contracts are structured. Please don't bring up the canard "what if he got injured loading boxes in a warehouse." He got 8 million last year to recuperate. Nfl players aren't paid like dock workers.

 

[Jimke]

You realize that you just said that the guy with the torn achilles tendon is "clearly not" the "injured party here," right?

A guy suffers a terrible injury playing for the Patriots, and then six months later, the team tells him he has to readily accept a pay cut, and when he balks, he's having a "hissy fit" and is holding the fans "emotionally hostage?"

Seriously?

Look, I get that the NFL's a business with little room for sentiment and loyalty, and that the Patriots need to do what's in the team's best interest, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that's not a bit effed up.

Last year, the Patriots paid Vince Wilfork 7 million dollars plus his playoff pay.
Vince was injured and played only 4 games. This year, the Patriots want some injury protection. They want to reduce Vince's base salary and pay
him an additional amount for games played. If Vince plays most or all
of the games, he gets his full 8 million dollars. Vince wants his 8 million
guaranteed even though he misses the entire season.

 

[mayoclinic]

A guy suffers a terrible injury playing for the Patriots, and then six months later, the team tells him he has to readily accept a pay cut, and when he balks, he's having a "hissy fit" and is holding the fans "emotionally hostage?"

Seriously?

Look, I get that the NFL's a business with little room for sentiment and loyalty, and that the Patriots need to do what's in the team's best interest, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that's not a bit effed up.

Wilfork has earned approximately $50M in his 10 year NFL career ($18M on his rookie deal, and $32M on his 2010 deal). He's been well compensated. Injuries are a part of the business, and salary reductions are common. It's not a free ride.

The 2004-2012 version of Wilfork would be worth every penny of his $8M 2014 salary, and it wouldn't be an issue. But why should it be "effed up" for the team to want performance commensurate with that kind of money, or to reduce the money if that is unlikely?

 

[lamafist]

That's not "effed up" at all. That how contracts are structured. Please don't bring up the canard "what if he got injured loading boxes in a warehouse." He got 8 million last year to recuperate. Nfl players aren't paid like dock workers.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not blaming the Patriots for what's effed up, I'm blaming how NFL contracts are structured. There's something inherently off-putting about a system in which a team is put in the position of having to renege on a guy's contract right when he's coming off a serious injury.

Last year, the Patriots paid Vince Wilfork 7 million dollars plus his playoff pay.
Vince was injured and played only 4 games. This year, the Patriots want some injury protection. They want to reduce Vince's base salary and pay
him an additional amount for games played. If Vince plays most or all
of the games, he gets his full 8 million dollars. Vince wants his 8 million
guaranteed even though he misses the entire season.

It's kind of funny how "the Patriots" as an entity can want to reduce Wilfork's base salary for injury protection, when at the same time, it's unlikely that Bob Kraft, Belichick, or anyone else in the organization would actually begrudge him the full remaining value of his contract. Hell, given his appreciation for everything Wilfork has done for the team both on and especially off the field, I'd bet that Kraft would happily give him a raise, if he could.

Wilfork has earned approximately $50M in his 10 year NFL career ($18M on his rookie deal, and $32M on his 2010 deal). He's been well compensated. Injuries are a part of the business, and salary reductions are common. It's not a free ride.

The 2004-2012 version of Wilfork would be worth every penny of his $8M 2014 salary, and it wouldn't be an issue. But why should it be "effed up" for the team to want performance commensurate with that kind of money, or to reduce the money if that is unlikely?

It's true, salary reductions are common. Know what's incredibly uncommon? For players who produced at Wilfork's level to have to play out an entire 6-year rookie deal without getting a contract extension that would make their money commensurate to their performance. Given Wilfork's level of play, getting 10 years at an average of $5 million a year has been a *huge* bargain for the Patriots.

So sure, maybe it was Wilfork's mistake to toe the line and not rock the boat during the first half of his career. Clearly he was naive to think that his patience early on would be rewarded by loyalty down the road. That's just not how the NFL works, and I know it, so I'm not going to begrudge the Pats for playing hardball at this juncture.

But I'm sure as hell not going blame Wilfork and accuse him of "throwing a hissy fit" and holding fans "emotionally hostage." Just because the salary cap puts the players' financial interests at odds with the teams' (and therefor the fans',) doesn't mean we have to buy into it 100% and refuse to give the players 1 second of empathy.

 

[mayoclinic]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not blaming the Patriots for what's effed up, I'm blaming how NFL contracts are structured. There's something inherently off-putting about a system in which a team is put in the position of having to renege on a guy's contract right when he's coming off a serious injury.

It's kind of funny how "the Patriots" as an entity can want to reduce Wilfork's base salary for injury protection, when at the same time, it's unlikely that Bob Kraft, Belichick, or anyone else in the organization would actually begrudge him the full remaining value of his contract. Hell, given his appreciation for everything Wilfork has done for the team both on and especially off the field, I'd bet that Kraft would happily give him a raise, if he could.

It's true, salary reductions are common. Know what's incredibly uncommon? For players who produced at Wilfork's level to have to play out an entire 6-year rookie deal without getting a contract extension that would make their money commensurate to their performance. Given Wilfork's level of play, getting 10 years at an average of $5 million a year has been a *huge* bargain for the Patriots.

So sure, maybe it was Wilfork's mistake to toe the line and not rock the boat during the first half of his career. Clearly he was naive to think that his patience early on would be rewarded by loyalty down the road. That's just not how the NFL works, and I know it, so I'm not going to begrudge the Pats for playing hardball at this juncture.

But I'm sure as hell not going blame Wilfork and accuse him of "throwing a hissy fit" and holding fans "emotionally hostage." Just because the salary cap puts the players' financial interests at odds with the teams' (and therefor the fans',) doesn't mean we have to buy into it 100% and refuse to give the players 1 second of empathy.

I think you're living in Cloud Cukooland. "Appreciation" is fine, but this is a business, and the cap makes sentiment obsolete when making decisions about whether or not to cut a player. Demarcus Ware got cut. Darrelle Revis got cut. The Pats salvaged Aqib Talib's career, and he sure didn't allow sentiment or loyalty to get in the way of taking a more lucrative deal. It works both ways.

Paying for past performance is a sure route to mediocrity. And expecting to collect anything beyond what is guaranteed in a contract is folly, unless you are able to earn it.

Wilfork's had a great career, and been well compensated. He got his long term deal, and he collected on the guaranteed portion of the deal and beyond. His salary this year was never guaranteed, and if he can't play well enough to earn it, he shouldn't expect to.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

paying for past performance is a sure route to mediocrity. And expecting to collect anything beyond what is guaranteed in a contract is folly, unless you are able to earn it.

Wilfork's had a great career, and been well compensated. He got his long term deal, and he collected on the guaranteed portion of the deal and beyond. His salary this year was never guaranteed, and if he can't play well enough to earn it, he shouldn't expect to.

+1

.......

 

[Deus Irae]

...Paying for past performance is a sure route to mediocrity...

People really need to stop posting this line, and similar lines. The line is simply not true. You ALWAYS pay for past performance.

 

[mayoclinic]

People really need to stop posting this line, and similar lines. The line is simply not true. You ALWAYS pay for past performance.

I have no idea what that means. Sure, a player's prior performance is going to affect the amount of his next contract. But teams constantly try to protect themselves against locking up too much money in case future performance doesn't match past performance, so that they don't have to overpay long term if things don't work out. Those that don't protect themselves often pay for it. Look at the Jets and Mark Sanchez, or Tennessee and Chris Johnson. Look at the big money contracts signed in FA this year, and how many of them actually give the teams an out relatively early on in case things don't work out as planned.

The Pats gave Wilfork a 5 year deal in which the last 2 years weren't guaranteed, just so they could have the flexibility to move on if the circumstances warranted it. Now the circumstances have changed. It's not that complicated.

 

[strngplyr]

People really need to stop posting this line, and similar lines. The line is simply not true. You ALWAYS pay for past performance.

But you don't, you use past performance as a guideline of what you expect the future performance to be, based on age, injury history, etc. and go from there.

Paying for past performance is sentimental and a business model for failure.

 

[reflexblue]

People really need to stop posting this line, and similar lines. The line is simply not true. You ALWAYS pay for past performance.

Up to a certain point if a team is smartly run.

 

[Deus Irae]

But you don't, you use past performance as a guideline of what you expect the future performance to be, based on age, injury history, etc. and go from there.

Paying for past performance is sentimental and a business model for failure.

The ONLY way to gage future performance is to compare current health and talent to past performance, and then guess at what the future will bring. You MUST pay for past performance, as a result. It's all you have to go on. Anything else is basically a coin flip.

People who talk about not paying for past performance are, almost invariably, looking for a way to screw the player by trying to undervalue that performance.

 

[mayoclinic]

The ONLY way to gage future performance is to compare current health and talent to past performance, and then guess at what the future will bring. You MUST pay for past performance, as a result. It's all you have to go on. Anything else is basically a coin flip.

People who talk about not paying for past performance are, almost invariably, looking for a way to screw the player by trying to undervalue that performance.

Contracts are given out all the time based on projections of future performance that have little relationship to past performance. Look at Everson Griffin's deal from Minnesota. No one could possibly argue that Griffin's past performance warranted that kind of deal. There are lots of factors that impact on a player's deal beyond past performance, notably supply and demand and market economics.

Just because a player's contract at time A is based to a large extent on prior performance, doesn't mean that the player's future performance will necessarily stay on that path. The further out a contract goes, the less certainty there is that "current health and talent" at that time will have the same relationship to past performance, hence the tendency of teams to protect themselves with voidable years. You don't want to be in a position down the road where "you MUST pay for past performance", when current performance doesn't bear a close relationship to it. Those teams generally don't do too well.

 

[Deus Irae]

Contracts are given out all the time based on projections of future performance that have little relationship to past performance. Look at Everson Griffin's deal from Minnesota. No one could possibly argue that Griffin's past performance warranted that kind of deal. There are lots of factors that impact on a player's deal beyond past performance, notably supply and demand and market economics.

He's getting that deal because Minnesota thinks they saw something in his past performance. This notion that you don't pay for past performance is simply nonsense. Even stiffs are paid based upon past performance. They're just paid by people who make mistakes. The NEP were sure as hell paying for past performance when they traded for, and paid, Ochocinco and Haynesworth.

And supply and demand impact only relatively. They have nothing to do with the underlying point.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

People really need to stop posting this line, and similar lines. The line is simply not true. You ALWAYS pay for past performance.

I disagree.


You pay for what you project the players performance to be.

That is why 30 year old RB's who had great careers do not get big paydays. Because teams sign them based on how they project them to play after 30 years old, rather than their past performance.