Content Post Trade Mankins NOW!!

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

According to PFF, Neal played 19 of the team's 73 offensive snaps in the Super Bowl. Assuming that those were the first 19 plays of the game and that I counted correctly, the last plays that Neal was in on were, in reverse order: Maroney for -3 yards, Incomplete to Moss, Tuck sack, Mitchell sack, LMo no gain, Maroney for 1, Maroney for -2. And the score was 7-3. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that losing Neal wasn't a huge issue.

I don't know about Neal,but those runs by Maroney sound about right on average to me

 

[Deus Irae]

According to PFF, Neal played 19 of the team's 73 offensive snaps in the Super Bowl. Assuming that those were the first 19 plays of the game and that I counted correctly, the last plays that Neal was in on were, in reverse order: Maroney for -3 yards, Incomplete to Moss, Tuck sack, Mitchell sack, LMo no gain, Maroney for 1, Maroney for -2. And the score was 7-3. So I'm going to go out on a limb and say that losing Neal wasn't a huge issue.

To recap, briefly....

With Neal in....

3 drives 1 TD.

Post-Neal

6 drives (one end of game), 1 TD

The Patriots only managed 7 points for the rest of the game post-Neal, and that was against an exhausted Giants front, and you don't think losing Neal mid-way through the 2nd quarter was an issue?

 

[Sciz]

And more on topic... Logan Mankins the unproven college LT was worth the 32nd overall pick. I'd want way more than that for Logan Mankins the All Pro LG, and I'm sure nobody would give that.

At above post:
The offense apparently wasn't overly effective with Neal in, with the last 7 of Neal's 19 snaps totaling 1 positive yard, 4 plays that lost yardage, and 2 plays for no gain. If you want to dissect all 19 of Neal's snaps, go for it.

 

[Deus Irae]

So........... interesting comments by Mankins today, huh?

 

[Synovia]

To recap, briefly....

With Neal in....

3 drives 1 TD.

Post-Neal

6 drives (one end of game), 1 TD

The Patriots only managed 7 points for the rest of the game post-Neal, and that was against an exhausted Giants front, and you don't think losing Neal mid-way through the 2nd quarter was an issue?

This is the most inane argument I've ever seen. It at no point addresses anything remotely related to the issue. Its like arguing that the Patriots haven't won since '04 because Je'Rod Cherry is gone.

Patriots rings with Je'Rod Cherry: 3 in 4 years.
Patriots rings without Je'Rod Cherry: 0.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is the most inane argument I've ever seen. It at no point addresses anything remotely related to the issue. Its like arguing that the Patriots haven't won since '04 because Je'Rod Cherry is gone.

Patriots rings with Je'Rod Cherry: 3 in 4 years.
Patriots rings without Je'Rod Cherry: 0.

The irony of you calling any of my posts "inane" has been noted, so thanks for that.

 

[Synovia]

The irony of you calling any of my posts "inane" has been noted, so thanks for that.

Thank you for again simply ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your sheltered little vision of life.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thank you for again simply ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your sheltered little vision of life.

I didn't ignore anything. Your post was ridiculous. This follow up is even worse. The notion that the team clearly playing better with Neal in than without him is an inane argument is ... well.... inane. These types of idiotic posts are why I had you on ignore before and will now put you back on it. Thanks for being a part of the "second chance" experiment, though.

 

[JDSal45]

They did play better or at least just as well without him, unless you cherry pick out all the other games listed. Neal didn't play in these games either in 2007: San Diego-38 points; Buffalo-38 points;Cincinnati-34 points; Buffalo-56 points; Pittsburgh-34 points; NYG (regular season)-38 points.

Throw in all those and it averages out to more than they scored with him. Though I'm sure you'd like to throw out the entire sample size to pathetically attempt to prove your "point".

Not that I think it means they are better off without Neal than with him in 2007 or without Mankins now for that matter, in the short term and strictly on the field. There are obviously other factors to consider as well, but the true on-the-field point is they wouldn't fall apart without him. Nor would I expect a disaster. Its a balance either way.

The only inane point is the one that claimed impending doom at the very thought of trading him or an unwillingness to even consider the option (which suddenly seems a lot less ridiculous, doesn't it?).

J D Sal

 

[Deus Irae]

They did play better or at least just as well without him, unless you cherry pick out all the other games listed. Neal didn't play in these games either in 2007: San Diego-38 points; Buffalo-38 points;Cincinnati-34 points; Buffalo-56 points; Pittsburgh-34 points; NYG (regular season)-38 points.

Throw in all those and it averages out to more than they scored with him. Though I'm sure you'd like to throw out the entire sample size to pathetically attempt to prove your "point".

Not that I think it means they are better off without Neal than with him in 2007 or without Mankins now for that matter, in the short term and strictly on the field. There are obviously other factors to consider as well, but the true on-the-field point is they wouldn't fall apart without him. Nor would I expect a disaster. Its a balance either way.

The only inane point is the one that claimed impending doom at the very thought of trading him or an unwillingness to even consider the option (which suddenly seems a lot less ridiculous, doesn't it?).

J D Sal

No, they didn't play better without him. This has been demonstrated multiple times on multiple threads, and the 2008 comparisons make it even more obvious. I'm not going to waste more time with it.

 

[BSR]

I maybe remembering it wrong, but I could have sworn that Neal went out after the second drive, which was when they were driving the ball. I always felt there were about five or six individual things that could have happened which would have led to the Pats winning that SB. Neal not getting hurt was one of them.

 

[JDSal45]

No, they didn't play better without him. This has been demonstrated multiple times on multiple threads, and the 2008 comparisons make it even more obvious. I'm not going to waste more time with it.

No it really hasn't. I didn't "clearly demonstrate"...I showed you the facts. Which you ignore because it doesn't help your case. They scored more efficiently without him, using the full sample size, than with him in 2007. Period.

J D Sal

 

[mgteich]

Trading Mankins for a 2012 first seems to be consistent with past patriot negotiations.

 

[jeffbiologist]

UHHHHH, anyone want to rethink any of their posts on my thread now???

 

[patsfan-1982]

the pats won't get more then a 2th round pick for him. and they will go into next years draft again with alot of draft picks that will turn into trade downs and picks in 2012




and you will end up with no moss, Nick Kaczur, and Dan Connolly, at G and every RB on the roster other then BJGE are FA's and oh ya the D line and OLB is still a ? right now.


don't get me wrong im not saying that if they trade mankins, it is the end of the pats but you can't keep tradeing all pro players and replace them with 2th round picks and think you will win SB's

 

[IllegalContact]

the pats won't get more then a 2th round pick for him. and they will go into next years draft again with alot of draft picks that will turn into trade downs and picks in 2012




and you will end up with no moss, Nick Kaczur, and Dan Connolly, at G and every RB on the roster other then BJGE are FA's and oh ya the D line and OLB is still a ? right now.


don't get me wrong im not saying that if they trade mankins, it is the end of the pats but you can't keep tradeing all pro players and replace them with 2th round picks and think you will win SB's

I agree, although many here would beg to differ

 

[jeffbiologist]

Shame on management if they didnt see this one coming! The bad PR alone isnt worth the hassle. Many many teams have the same amount of FAs next year due to the CBA, we will have money to resign players...more if we are smart about it. I'd rather have Moss another year than franchise Mankins. Why keep a guy who is disgruntled, they traded Seymour last year for less a reason! But like Seymour, it would have been better for the TEAM if they had addressed the problem BEFORE the draft than going into camp.

 

[moosekill]

Shame on management if they didnt see this one coming! The bad PR alone isnt worth the hassle. Many many teams have the same amount of FAs next year due to the CBA, we will have money to resign players...more if we are smart about it. I'd rather have Moss another year than franchise Mankins. Why keep a guy who is disgruntled, they traded Seymour last year for less a reason! But like Seymour, it would have been better for the TEAM if they had addressed the problem BEFORE the draft than going into camp.

Dood didn't want to sign for what most of us think is a reasonable contract. He is under their control, they hold every single card there is. All he can do is be a whiny ***** and hope they trade him. What should they have done? People like you have no concept of how real life works. Should they have given him a huge unreasonable contract? Should they trade every player who threatens to hold out and cry to the media? What should they have done? What would you have done in their situation? Given in? Hell pay everyone what they want so they will all be happy.

 

[lillestroom]

Trading Mankins for a 2012 first seems to be consistent with past patriot negotiations.

I'd take that draft pick in a heartbeat.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Dood didn't want to sign for what most of us think is a reasonable contract. He is under their control, they hold every single card there is. All he can do is be a whiny ***** and hope they trade him. What should they have done? People like you have no concept of how real life works. Should they have given him a huge unreasonable contract? Should they trade every player who threatens to hold out and cry to the media? What should they have done? What would you have done in their situation? Given in? Hell pay everyone what they want so they will all be happy.

You are correct! We've been through this ad nauseum over the years. The Patriots don't do these ridiculous break the bank contracts, but they offer very large, very fair contracts. The Patriots have made more than fair offers to these various players, and many chose the gigantic contracts with other teams. Guess What? The Patriots, and not anybody else was voted the team of the decade.

Answer me this PatriotBashers - Did the Patriots offer Mankins (reportedly) one of the Top 5 contracts in NFL history for a guard? YES, they did. Did they say, 'no, we're not negotiating until your contract is up'? NO! Did they offer a low ball offer, like $4M a year and say 'take it or leave it'? NO! They offered at or above $7,000,000 PER YEAR!!!! TO A FREAKIN' GUARD! So, can everybody please stop with the "the Patriots are cheap" garbage? This is not monopoly money. There will be a salary cap. You have to manage to that cap, when and if it returns. Mankins is another whining, spoiled, selfish athlete! I could not care less if he ever plays for them again. He's NOT freaking John Hannah.