@FieldYates: Source: the Patriots have signed starting S Patrick Chung to a 3-year extension through 2017 worth up to $8.2M, with $3.4M guaranteed.
Patriots sign Patrick Chung to extension
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I haven't been as high on him as others but he's played totally fine given the other standouts in the secondary take the toughest matchups. And for this money it's totally fine -- he's cuttable if he stinks, or can just slide into a lesser role and only be slightly overpaid if you find someone better.
A little surprised by this. Im going to take this as a good sign that they think they can keep the secondary together because, while Im pleasantly surprised at how well Chung played this year, Im not eager to run Chung out at starting safety without McCourty and Revis doing their thing.
Got my hands on Chung's contract. $2.4m sign bonus, salaries $1m, $1.4m, $1.8m, roster bonus $200k each year & $500k incentives in 2016-17
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/553554437332299778
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/553554437332299778
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/553554437332299778
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/553554437332299778
link to tweet
This. I am fine with this if Revis and McCourty are back. Chung has looked better this year because he's been allowed to play to his strengths (defending against the run) and avoid his weaknesses (pass coverage). If Revis isn't back and Chung has to cover more next year we are going to be in trouble because he's terrible at it.Stitch01 said:
If he was a good two way safety, he would be making double or triple the money.Tyrone Biggums said:
He's good at man coverage; he's just not very good at zone. I wrote about this a few weeks ago.Tyrone Biggums said:
Tyrone Biggums said:
I think our collective expectations of how well defensive players should cover when playing man are just far too high-given the current rules and how effective passing offenses only a handful of safeties--the Weddles, Thomases and McCourtys--are consistently good in man coverage. I see Chung as a roughly average cover player for an NFL strong safety, and pff (I know, I know) has him at 27 out of the 59 safeties who played 50% of their team's snaps.
It's a cheap deal and it helps with offensive continuity so I'm all for it.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
It's not a grocery list. You don't start at the top and work your way down.
As others have said, Chung's rebound season seems to be a function of the improvement of the rest of the secondary. The two extensions today also shows that the Pats emphasis on special teams.
Is there a salary cap based or other tactical reason why the Pats are making these moves now? In other words, if the season were to end tomorrow night (heaven forbid), would the Pats be in any different position than they are today with respect to these moves?
I ask because it seems a bit curious to be doing this so close to a playoff game. Not that it's unheard of or a big deal.
I ask because it seems a bit curious to be doing this so close to a playoff game. Not that it's unheard of or a big deal.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
The way the Pats front office does business, I don't care when on the calendar the team-friendly, non-albatross deals are struck.
Apples and oranges, but I prefer this to "welp the season has started so I'm not going to talk contracts/extensions" way of life that's more common in other sports.
Getting all the ducks in order with the other extensions to deal with in the offseason. Can't not like the deal.
You'd think. Cheap deal for a guy who's been a plus defender at his position. As long as McCourty is here (and there's zero reason he shouldn't be here at least next year), it's nice to have him around.SeoulSoxFan said:
Stitch01 said:
With the reasonable numbers not sure if it impacts Revis and/or McC extensions much in terms of pure cap figures, no?
Stitch01 said:
Because they should have saved the money for the other two or because you need a better cover guy than Chung to start if you don't have strong coverage players in Revis and DMC?
The latter (sorry, misspoke, latter obviously corresponds with the rest of my post). I highly doubt that its going to change whether they can afford Revis or McCourty, but he's not that versatile of a player and they already have two other safeties on rookie deals for depth and a ST masquerading as a safety. Special teams does add some versatility, but its pretty expensive contract for a special teams player that AFAIK isnt really on the same level as Slater or even BoldenShelterdog said:
Im assuming that they think they can keep this secondary together, and its still reasonably small dollars, but I dont really like the deal unless McCourty and Revis are back.
TheoShmeo said:
Is there a team aspect here that might help explain the timing. Their playoffs are about to start and they rewarded two players for doing what seems like non-glamorous or at least non-high profile work. Probably some good team vibes in the locker room today and a message sent to other players in the middle of the Pat's roster that blue collar players can get rewarded.
It's all part of the BB master motivator plan.
Stitch01 said:
I suspect it doesn't impact their ability to sign McCourty or Revis--I'll bet they have some kind of budget in mind for those two players and they'll sign them or not based on that budget, but they won't decrease the budget for two key players because they're spending a moderate amount of money on a pretty average player at the same position group.
Yeah I dont think it impacts their ability to sign Revis and McCourty, I just brain farted and said former. The rest of the post explains my position: he's only worthwhile as a starter in this scheme and they already have depth at the position so he's not adding much as a backup and he's overpaid as a special teams guy. Hopefully they have the same secondary the next few years and its moot, then its not a bad deal IMO.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
... because look how much better the secondary has been this year with Chung back!
To be serious, though, before this 3/4 of the starting secondary were not under contract for next season. I think we all agree that he is the least-important of the four starters, but if the money is right why wait?
Stitch01 said:
Gotcha.
Lower tier veteran contracts are the hardest for me to evaluate--the marginal difference between Chung (or Bolden or a Wendell or even Cannon) and whatever cheapo replacement they'd use is just too small for me to meaningfully analyze.
I wonder if this signing actually INCREASES their ability to sign DMC especially, and to a lesser extent, Revis. By locking up one starting safety at low money, and with the depth on rookie deals, they can afford to put more of the "Safety Pool" into DMC's pocket.
Devizier said:
Mayo too
Edit: once they figure out those situations, then they can probably address Revis, which is the most important issue of the offseason IMO
Saints Rest said:
That's a good point. Adrian Wilson ain't walking through that door.
Seriously though, who is the primary back up SS right now? Tavon Wilson? If so, they clearly would have needed to bring in some free agent either on the cheap (and thus standing a very good chance of not being good) or by paying a lot (and thus sapping from the Revis/McCourty money pool).
edit: Harmon is probably ahead of Wilson, right?
I think right now Wilson backs up Chung, Harmon backs up McCourty, and when they go three safeties either of them might play.dbn said:
Cant ignore the coworker aspect. Maybe McC and Revis enjoy the idea of knowing who thier running mates are gonna be.
Am I saying that either one of them would leave any money on the table to play with Chung? Of course not. But knowing that the Pat front office is trying to keep the band together may have some value.
Am I saying that either one of them would leave any money on the table to play with Chung? Of course not. But knowing that the Pat front office is trying to keep the band together may have some value.
