Pats sign new long snapper

[convertedpatsfan]

Re: Pats sign new long snapper?

Wow, Ingram is one of the most embarrassing draft picks under BB.

Missing on an RB/WR? It happens.

But if you're going to use a DRAFT PICK a long-snapper, he better be damn guaranteed to be the BEST long-snapper available who will contribute to your team for years.

Instead, he's so bad we're actually cutting him.

I know that you have to blow up everything to be the worst thing ever, hence the user name, but are you really trying to argue that a 6th round pick who had a great rookie season but struggled in his second year is one of the most embarrassing draft picks ever by BB?

I love BB and think that he's a great talent evaluator but there were some misses no doubt. From Maroney (I finally admit it) to Jackson to Wheatley to O'Connell to Thomas to Scott to Johnson to Williams to Redmond, all picks in the top-3 rounds, and you're really going to argue that Jake Ingram is one of the most embarrassing?

He was a 6th-round pick. I realize we got Tom Brady in the 6th round, but that doesn't mean every 6th-rounder that isn't a future HOFer must be a massive bust that embarrasses the entire organization.

As for the transaction, hopefully it makes the team better. I worry about the short-term impact with a new kicker and a new long snapper starting for the same game, but not much we can do about it. Hope the new guy has fixed his problems too. I expect Ingram to catch on somewhere.

 

[mgteich]

Lonnie left on the first day of free agency. There is no reason to believe that the patriots could have gotten him for the same money.

In fact, given that he announced on the first day, it is quite possible that he didn't give the patriots any opportunity to match.

I absolutely believe Paxton. He wouldn't have gone if he didn't know the coach and wasn't going to get a signifcant raise.

So, sure he might have stayed if no one offered more than what the patriots offered him in his old contract.

It's called "big money", possibly with a side of "former Patriots coach", and he said it was the only way he'd leave, meaning your point about "Did anyone stop and think that maybe Lonnie didn't want to be in New England anymore?" only holds water if Paxton is a liar.

And, for all of those people talking about the money, it was big money for a long snapper, not big money for the team. In terms of team money, 20% more than almost nothing is still almost nothing.

 

[2000army]

Re: Pats sign new long snapper?

Wow, Ingram is one of the most embarrassing draft picks under BB.

Missing on an RB/WR? It happens.

But if you're going to use a DRAFT PICK a long-snapper, he better be damn guaranteed to be the BEST long-snapper available who will contribute to your team for years.

Instead, he's so bad we're actually cutting him.

Omg.... not a 6th rd pick..... please stop posting

 

[Deus Irae]

Lonnie left on the first day of free agency. There is no reason to believe that the patriots could have gotten him for the same money.

In fact, given that he announced on the first day, it is quite possible that he didn't give the patriots any opportunity to match.

I absolutely believe Paxton. He wouldn't have gone if he didn't know the coach and wasn't going to get a signifcant raise.

So, sure he might have stayed if no one offered more than what the patriots offered him in his old contract.

The Patriots had the entire period of time up until the start of free agency to sign him. In fact, they spent the season giving deals to guys like Kaczur, so the "opportunity to match" is overblown. We don't know what the Patriots offered, if anything. We know that they could have matched the Broncos, or exceeded that number, without taking any major cap hit. Unless you're calling out Paxton (and you're not, since you say that you believe him), the Patriots must have chosen not to and, instead, chosen to let him go rather than pay him.

It was a mistake.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Pats sign new long snapper?

It was the fourth. The Giants must like him, just gave him a $540,000 signing bonus. In all fairness he was drafted as a linebacker who could also long snap.
Also, he was in the 2007 draft so he would have been an improvement over any of the other picks after Meriweather.

Except, of course, for the fact that he probably wouldn't have made the 53. . . .

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Pats sign new long snapper?

As for the transaction, hopefully it makes the team better. I worry about the short-term impact with a new kicker and a new long snapper starting for the same game, but not much we can do about it. Hope the new guy has fixed his problems too. I expect Ingram to catch on somewhere.

It can't really be worse than a new (temporary) kicker and an inconsistent long snapper. . . .

 

[BPF]

The Patriots had the entire period of time up until the start of free agency to sign him. In fact, they spent the season giving deals to guys like Kaczur, so the "opportunity to match" is overblown. We don't know what the Patriots offered, if anything. We know that they could have matched the Broncos, or exceeded that number, without taking any major cap hit. Unless you're calling out Paxton (and you're not, since you say that you believe him), the Patriots must have chosen not to and, instead, chosen to let him go rather than pay him.

It was a mistake.

I don't think it was a mistake. The Pats had too many other pressing contract issues to worry about a LS, as good as Paxton was. I'm afraid this is nothing but a timing and money issue. Looks like overall the Pats did sign the right players since they are 6-2 and the team that got Paxton didn't make that many good decisions, including giving that type of deal to a LS when they had plenty of other holes to fill.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I don't think it was a mistake. The Pats had too many other pressing contract issues to worry about a LS, as good as Paxton was. I'm afraid this is nothing but a timing and money issue. Looks like overall the Pats did sign the right players since they are 6-2 and the team that got Paxton didn't make that many good decisions, including giving that type of deal to a LS when they had plenty of other holes to fill.

And, equally importantly, Denver already had a pretty good long snapper of its own in Mike Leach, which makes the decision to overspend for Paxton even more bizarre in retrospect.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think it was a mistake. The Pats had too many other pressing contract issues to worry about a LS, as good as Paxton was. I'm afraid this is nothing but a timing and money issue. Looks like overall the Pats did sign the right players since they are 6-2 and the team that got Paxton didn't make that many good decisions, including giving that type of deal to a LS when they had plenty of other holes to fill.

They prioritized their signings. They had Kaczur ahead of Paxton and Wilfork, for example.

You're welcome to think they prioritized correctly. I don't. And pointing to their current record doesn't offer any evidence that letting Paxton go was the right decision, since it's clear that perfect snapping hasn't been what's gotten the team to that record. On the other hand, having to cut Paxton's replacement after spending a draft pick specifically for that purpose is evidence that they got it wrong.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Jake Ingram cut

Apologies in advance if this has already been posted, but I didn't find it anywhere. Anyways, hopefully those of us who were calling for his head two weeks ago won't be held in such low regard anymore. At the end of the day, you can't do much with a long snapper who can't long snap.

Patriots cut LS Jake Ingram - Extra Points - Boston.com

 

[BradyFTW!]

Well, for once one of my bold predictions actually came true- first for everything, I guess. Seriously though, I dunno why anyone was even bothering to defending him after the last few weeks, there isn't much you can do with a long snapper who can't long snap.

 

[DaBruinz]

They prioritized their signings. They had Kaczur ahead of Paxton and Wilfork, for example.

You're welcome to think they prioritized correctly. I don't. And pointing to their current record doesn't offer any evidence that letting Paxton go was the right decision, since it's clear that perfect snapping hasn't been what's gotten the team to that record. On the other hand, having to cut Paxton's replacement after spending a draft pick specifically for that purpose is evidence that they got it wrong.

So, what you're saying is that Belichick should be able to see the future and should have known that the best long snapper in college would be near perfect for a year and then totally lose his ability to long snap... And that re-signing guys like Wilfork, Warren, and Kaczur should have been less of a priority than re-signing the long snapper....


Hind-sight is great...

 

[RayClay]

They figured Pryor and Edelman would last, but they had to "snap up" this guy. So much for the draft being an exact science.

 

[BradyFTW!]

So, what you're saying is that Belichick should be able to see the future and should have known that the best long snapper in college would be near perfect for a year and then totally lose his ability to long snap... And that re-signing guys like Wilfork, Warren, and Kaczur should have been less of a priority than re-signing the long snapper....


Hind-sight is great...

Ingram was far from 'near perfect for a year'. He wasn't horrendous like he has been in 2010, but I wouldn't even call him good, let alone excellent.

 

[Deus Irae]

So, what you're saying is that Belichick should be able to see the future and should have known that the best long snapper in college would be near perfect for a year and then totally lose his ability to long snap... And that re-signing guys like Wilfork, Warren, and Kaczur should have been less of a priority than re-signing the long snapper....


Hind-sight is great...

Yes.... all my posts about the lousy moves made by BB in 2009 were all just hindsight postings.

And you completely screwed up what I'd posted about Wilfork, too.


Not your best job of posting, especially given your comments at the time of the Paxton signing by the Broncos:

So much for the long snapper position not being an area of concern because the Pats will "just re-sign Paxton."

Anyone else want to flame me for thinking that Long Snapper is an area for concern?

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/219459-paxton-signed-broncos.html#post1295285

Its not a matter of whether or not he can be replaced. Its a matter of people thinking that the longsnapper position is an easy one to fill.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/219459-paxton-signed-broncos.html#post1295308

 

[captain stone]

BTW, Capt. Still waiting to know which team has hired you for talent evaluation since you claim to be so awesome...

I have made no such claim; I just give my opinion on things as I see them.

 

[captain stone]

WE CUT A SIXTH ROUND PICK?!?

*Commits Seppuku*

If I hadn't watched the DeNiro movie Ronin,
I would have no idea what that word meant.

BTW, how is Seppuku different from Hari-Kiri?

 

[captain stone]

Re: Pats sign new long snapper?

Probably should have taken a flyer on DeOssie's kid...

I liked DeOssie too, but unfortunately Bill never really had a chance at him, barring a trade-up.
He was taken in the 4th round by the Jints, about a dozen picks before us.
And in that '07 draft, we didn't have a 2nd- or 3rd-round pick, and he really wasn't rated
much higher than where he was chosen, but if he were still avail. when it was our turn,
then I would've taken him too.
(Plan B would've been Brown - Tarrell Brown the CB, not Kareem Brown the lazy slob.)

 

[Sicilian]

They prioritized their signings. They had Kaczur ahead of Paxton and Wilfork, for example.

This is pretty narrow sighted. Just because they signed Kazcur first doesn't mean they "prioritized him" ahead of Wilfork. Wilfork's contract was going to be for a ton more money and was likely more complicated. Also, Kazcur was probably much more willing to just take what he could get, given he doesn't have nearly the open market value of Wilfork. That's why ultimately the Pats had to franchise Wilfork before getting a deal done.

 

[TheComeback]

Ingram was far from 'near perfect for a year'. He wasn't horrendous like he has been in 2010, but I wouldn't even call him good, let alone excellent.

What are you basing on that on? I don't remember Ingram having any problems last year at all. He definitely was good, and I remember people talking about what a smart pick it was to get a solid young player at that position.