338 replies to this topic

[dcmissle]

I really don't think so. While obviously the offense is much more proficient than the D, I do this is about as major of an upgrade as the Pats could get. Call it Wallace over Branch -- that's a huge upgrade, and I think that's more important than worrying about whether the upgrade is on offense or defense. I'm not saying ignore the defense, I'd focus the draft on the defense as well as a mid-range free agent DB who could be a fit.

But the fit with Wallace is really perfect. Franchise Welker, have the Gronk/Hernandez duo, return a very strong O-line, and give a more prominent role to Ridley (and hopefully see Vereen emerge, as well, but if not perfectly happy with Woody). I'd go to war with that and a mediocre defense, and I think next year's defense could be average with some DB upgrades.

Still lingering with me is Greg Cossell's post-Super Bowl piece. There he argued that the Pats' explosiveness on offense was deceptive because when finally confronted with two defenses in the playoffs that could man up against the *horizontal game*, for want of a better term, the offense was bottled up. Combine that with a defense that cannot win games played in the high teens through mid-20s and you have a problem.

The great attraction of Wallace to me is that he brings this missing dimension and is as close to a sure thing as it gets at the position. If he were to remain healthy, he would represent a real commitment to the remaining Brady years.

I'd be tempted to do this even if it required, financially, parting ways with Wes. If Welker were to leave this off-season for a big money deal with someone else, his days in a Pats uniform would represent tremendous value for both him and the team.

The only thing that would give me pause is if Josh and BB were convinced that Lloyd would represent a significant upgrade at a much more modest price. I'd be skeptical but open minded. apart from that, you can have every other WR in FA or the draft.

[Shelterdog]

Still lingering with me is Greg Cossell's post-Super Bowl piece. There he argued that the Pats' explosiveness on offense was deceptive because when finally confronted with two defenses in the playoffs that could man up against the *horizontal game*, for want of a better term, the offense was bottled up. Combine that with a defense that cannot win games played in the high teens through mid-20s and you have a problem.

The Cossell piece struck me as a little overblown--NE did score 23 against a very good Baltimore defense despite turning the ball over a bunch and while they only had 17 against the Giants, that was with an ineffective Gronk, a few turnovers (including the safety), and a defense that gave up long drive after long drive.

There's room for improvement and all, and making the 2012 offense as good as the 2011 offense will require adding some high quality WR talent, but arguing that the 2011 offense isn't that good because they only averaged 20 points a game deep in the playoffs isn't persuasive.

Edited by Shelterdog, 22 February 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[dcmissle]

The Cossell piece struck me as a little overblown--NE did score 23 against a very good Baltimore defense despite turning the ball over a bunch and while they only had 17 against the Giants, that was with an ineffective Gronk, a few turnovers (including the safety), and a defense that gave up long drive after long drive.

There's room for improvement and all, and making the 2012 offense as good as the 2011 offense will require adding some high quality WR talent, but arguing that the 2011 offense isn't that good because they only averaged 20 points a game deep in the playoffs isn't persuasive.

I'll buy a little overblown. The what ifs on Gronk in the SB are pretty big.

By the same token, I'm looking for more margin for error on the offensive side. They lack a key dimension that most very good teams have. I expect some improvements on defense -- getting offensive players and street FAs out of the defensive backfield should be low hanging fruit. But I'm hopin' for another SB shot and am reconciled to the fact that this team is going to be a defensive juggernaut no time soon.

[soxfan121]

And at least until Branch is re-signed WR may very well be our biggest hole-if the season starts tomorrow Ocho, Edelman and Underwood are our receivers. (C isn't great with Wendell and McDonald, and the OLB opposite Ninkovich isn't terrific with Cunningham/Carter: the rest of the defense isn't great but there aren't glaring day one holes like at WR and C).

While technically true, if the season starts tomorrow the Patriots still have better pass catching options than most teams in the NFL. WR might be thin (or bare, let's not quibble over semantics) but TE is stacked and regardless of what happens, two of the top 3 pass catching options return in 2012. The debate over (arguably) the 3rd & 4th options in the passing game is a bit overblown.

I'm greatly enjoying the "franchise Welker, sign Wallace, give up a 1st round pick, sign Lloyd" era. We should totally use all our cap space and assets on the WR position; the problem with this team in 2011 was offense. (not directed at you SD, more of a general lament about the whole thread)

[Morning Woodhead]

I'm still loving the idea of Wallace and I hope it happens, even at a steep price. A Wallace type player brings in elements of our 07 offense that we haven't seen in a few years. Combine that with our current offense (which is still good), and I'd love to see what Gronknandez could do over the middle with a safety chasing Wallace all day......

With that said, from a cap perspectice, if they were to get Wallace, I wonder if Wallace and Lloyd is an option or something to consider vs. Wallace & Welker or Lloyd & Welker. Wallace/Lloyd is certainly more cap friendly than Wallace/Welker, probably not as deadly though.

[H78]

It's incredibly fun to think of what a defense would have to come up with to cover:

Welker
Wallace
Gronk
Hernandez

Seriously, what would you do? That could be fun to talk about in and of itself.

However, my #1 offseason wish is still Mario Williams.

[TOleary25]

With that said, from a cap perspectice, if they were to get Wallace, I wonder if Wallace and Lloyd is an option or something to consider vs. Wallace & Welker or Lloyd & Welker. Wallace/Lloyd is certainly more cap friendly than Wallace/Welker, probably not as deadly though.

I think Lloyd would be the Wallace alternative rather than the Welker replacement. Either would be brought in to stretch the field and create room underneath for Welker/Gronk/Hernandez. Lloyd seems like the more realistic option at this point unless Welker and the Pats are very far apart on a contract.

[ivanvamp]

The Cossell piece struck me as a little overblown--NE did score 23 against a very good Baltimore defense despite turning the ball over a bunch and while they only had 17 against the Giants, that was with an ineffective Gronk, a few turnovers (including the safety), and a defense that gave up long drive after long drive.

They had two turnovers, if you count the safety. They possessed the ball for 22:55 (call it 23 minutes) and scored 17 points. That's one point every 1.35 minutes. Project that out over 30 minutes of possession and you get 22 points scored.

Against Baltimore they had the ball for 26 1/2 minutes and scored 23 points. That's one point every 1.15 minutes. Project that out over 30 minutes of possession and you get 26 points scored.

So one of the biggest reasons the Pats didn't score much against Bal and NY is that the offense didn't have the ball for very long. Part of that is, as you pointed out, due to the defense not getting many 3-and-outs, but part of it is that the offense (especially vs. NY) had a handful of extremely short drives (if you want to call them drives).

[pappymojo]

So one of the biggest reasons the Pats didn't score much against Bal and NY is that the offense didn't have the ball for very long. Part of that is, as you pointed out, due to the defense not getting many 3-and-outs, but part of it is that the offense (especially vs. NY) had a handful of extremely short drives (if you want to call them drives).

but is the ineffectiveness of the offense in those games due to the success of the man coverage by those defensive teams or is it due to the injury to Gronkowski? Probably a bit of both.

[ivanvamp]

but is the ineffectiveness of the offense in those games due to the success of the man coverage by those defensive teams or is it due to the injury to Gronkowski? Probably a bit of both.

Yeah, probably. They relied heavily on Gronk for sure, and without him at even 60-70%, it made a huge difference. I just wonder what the distribution of Brady's passes would be if they had Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, and Lloyd/Wallace. I'm guessing Lloyd/Wallace would get the bulk of the 51 receptions that went to Branch, but because those would probably be of the deeper variety than those that went to Branch, (a) Brady would probably complete a lower percentage of passes, but (b) he'd have a lot higher yds/att.

[Pandemonium67]

The only thing that would give me pause is if Josh and BB were convinced that Lloyd would represent a significant upgrade at a much more modest price.

Yeah, that's the rub. I wonder if the $$$ saving from Wallace to Lloyd might be enough to keep Welker, plus you've got that first round pick for defense or center.

Frankly, I would be quite pleased with either scenario.

[ivanvamp]

Wallace vs. Lloyd - their best seasons:

Wallace (2010): 100 targets, 60 rec, 60.0 rec% (rec/tar), 1257 yds, 21.0 ypc, 10 td, 364 yac, 28.9 yac% (yac/yds)
Lloyd (2010): 132 targets, 77 rec, 58.3 rec% (rec/tar), 1448 yds, 18.8 ypc, 11 td, 198 yac, 13.7 yac% (yac/yds)

Seems like Lloyd is actually the better deep threat. If you remove yac from the equations, and just went with yardage gained upon the point of reception, here's what you have:

Wallace: 60 rec, 893 yds, 14.9 ypc
Lloyd: 77 rec, 1250 yds, 16.2 ypc

So Lloyd was catching the ball further downfield, on average, than Wallace was. It's not a huge difference, but anyone suggesting that Wallace is the better deep threat...well, when each guy has been at his best, Lloyd, with a worse QB throwing to him, put up better deep numbers.

Maybe it means that Wallace is more versatile, though, than Lloyd. Maybe he does a better job at the midrange routes. Who knows. Both are good receivers that would help the Patriots. Lloyd, I'm sure, would cost a lot less. Sign me up for Lloyd + Welker instead of Wallace + something less than Welker.

[Shelterdog]

Yeah, that's the rub. I wonder if the $$$ saving from Wallace to Lloyd might be enough to keep Welker, plus you've got that first round pick for defense or center.

Frankly, I would be quite pleased with either scenario.

The free agent wide receiver market is going to be really interesting. There's a ton of supply of free agents and unrestricted free agents (Wallace, Jackson, Bowe, Lloyd, Welker, Stevie Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Branch, DeSean Jackson, Colston) who all think they're getting monster contracts but I'm not so sure about demand--a lot of teams have cap room but whether they open the purse strings, especially for a wide receiver, is a very different question.

I could easily see Wayne or Lloyd being the guy without a chair when the music stops and the Pats being able to snag one for something like 2/10.

[Royal Reader]

A point with regard to the whole 'Why would anyone come here to be fourth option?' discussion. I don't think 'Outside receiver is fourth option' is an intrinsic part of this offense. I think it came about because Deion Branch isn't as good at this point in his career as Welker, Gronk or Hernandez. If the outside option has either speed to get open consistently, or the ability to outjump a defensive back in single coverage, they'd be used more imho.

[Judge Mental13]

Wallace vs. Lloyd - their best seasons:

Wallace (2010): 100 targets, 60 rec, 60.0 rec% (rec/tar), 1257 yds, 21.0 ypc, 10 td, 364 yac, 28.9 yac% (yac/yds)
Lloyd (2010): 132 targets, 77 rec, 58.3 rec% (rec/tar), 1448 yds, 18.8 ypc, 11 td, 198 yac, 13.7 yac% (yac/yds)

Seems like Lloyd is actually the better deep threat. If you remove yac from the equations, and just went with yardage gained upon the point of reception, here's what you have:

Wallace: 60 rec, 893 yds, 14.9 ypc
Lloyd: 77 rec, 1250 yds, 16.2 ypc

So Lloyd was catching the ball further downfield, on average, than Wallace was. It's not a huge difference, but anyone suggesting that Wallace is the better deep threat...well, when each guy has been at his best, Lloyd, with a worse QB throwing to him, put up better deep numbers.

Maybe it means that Wallace is more versatile, though, than Lloyd. Maybe he does a better job at the midrange routes. Who knows. Both are good receivers that would help the Patriots. Lloyd, I'm sure, would cost a lot less. Sign me up for Lloyd + Welker instead of Wallace + something less than Welker.

Didn't realize they were so close there. Wallace's age and the fact that he's one of 3 reliable deep threats on the Steelers with Brown and Sanders add to his value. Lloyd is a good player but if it's him or Lloyd I don't think it's even a question. A guy like Wallace could extend Brady's career another 5 years, and if not, he'll be a valuable target for whomever comes in to replace Brady. Lloyd's a nice piece, but Wallace's potential valuable is far greater.

[Mystic Merlin]

While technically true, if the season starts tomorrow the Patriots still have better pass catching options than most teams in the NFL. WR might be thin (or bare, let's not quibble over semantics) but TE is stacked and regardless of what happens, two of the top 3 pass catching options return in 2012. The debate over (arguably) the 3rd & 4th options in the passing game is a bit overblown.

I'm greatly enjoying the "franchise Welker, sign Wallace, give up a 1st round pick, sign Lloyd" era. We should totally use all our cap space and assets on the WR position; the problem with this team in 2011 was offense. (not directed at you SD, more of a general lament about the whole thread)

I don't think it's that the offense was a 'problem'. My - and I suspect others' - support for signing Wallace stems from a belief that seeking to improve a particular unit (and I would argue that Wallace represents an upgrade over Branch, for ex., that exceeds or at least approximates the upgrade, say, Mario Williams would represent over Ninkovich or Anderson) misses the point, namely that upgrading the offense by X is just as impactful as upgrading the defense by that same X. We can quibble over whether particular moves represent greater value that others by that standard, but I think the proposition that an upgrade on offense would be dollar-for-dollar less useful or impactful than an equivalent upgrade on defense should be questioned; and, even if that WAS the case, it isn't clear whether the marginal utility of improving the defense instead of the offense, value otherwise being equal, is all that great.

The first rounder is of course a big consideration here, but I would have to be convinced that the pick PLUS the allocation of the money not used for Wallace would outweigh the value Wallace represents. I'm not sure that that is the case, especially when you consider Wallace's unique skillset and the health questions about Mario Williams (not to mention the attrition rate of late first rounders), for instance.

I also think it is misleading to characterize Mike Wallace as a potential 'third option', as if he wouldn't see like 95% of the snaps and bring in God knows how many 20+ yard plays and TDs; moreover, he'd be an investment in a post-Welker WR corps.

Edited by Mystic Merlin, 22 February 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Shelterdog]

Didn't realize they were so close there. Wallace's age and the fact that he's one of 3 reliable deep threats on the Steelers with Brown and Sanders add to his value. Lloyd is a good player but if it's him or Lloyd I don't think it's even a question. A guy like Wallace could extend Brady's career another 5 years, and if not, he'll be a valuable target for whomever comes in to replace Brady. Lloyd's a nice piece, but Wallace's potential valuable is far greater.

The thing is Lloyd has had the 1 monster year that's comparable to Wallace's two best years and 1 very good year this year tht was a little better than Wallace's rookie year he was under 750 yards every other year in his career.

[ivanvamp]

Didn't realize they were so close there. Wallace's age and the fact that he's one of 3 reliable deep threats on the Steelers with Brown and Sanders add to his value. Lloyd is a good player but if it's him or Lloyd I don't think it's even a question. A guy like Wallace could extend Brady's career another 5 years, and if not, he'll be a valuable target for whomever comes in to replace Brady. Lloyd's a nice piece, but Wallace's potential valuable is far greater.

I agree that Wallace is better than Lloyd. At their best, their seasons were pretty equivalent. But Wallace has, despite being younger, done it better for more seasons than Lloyd has. But that said, neither of them is likely going to be a 90 catch guy in NE, not with Gronk, Hernandez, and Welker on board. So for me, it comes down to:

(1) Which player has proven he can thrive in a McDaniels system? big point for Lloyd
(2) Which player is more explosive? point for Wallace, but at their very best it's pretty equivalent
(3) Which player is younger? big point for Wallace
(4) Which player will cost the Pats more to acquire? point for Lloyd (he won't cost a draft pick to acquire)
(5) Which player will cost the Pats more $$ that could otherwise be used to help the defense? point for Lloyd

Points (2) and (3) are the case for Wallace, and it's a compelling case. If you can afford it, why not get the more explosive talent? But the other factors lead me to conclude that for this team, given all their needs and the resources available, Lloyd is a better option. But, really, to have either one of them opposite Welker would be awesome - assuming that acquiring Wallace wouldn't mean that Welker has to go.

[ivanvamp]

The thing is Lloyd has had the 1 monster year that's comparable to Wallace's two best years and 1 very good year this year tht was a little better than Wallace's rookie year he was under 750 yards every other year in his career.

Yep, very true. I acknowledge that in the post right above this one...I was typing that in my opening paragraph as your post popped up.

[soxfan121]

I don't think it's that the offense was a 'problem'. My - and I suspect others' - support for signing Wallace stems from a belief that seeking to improve a particular unit (and I would argue that Wallace represents an upgrade over Branch, for ex., that exceeds or at least approximates the upgrade, say, Mario Williams would represent over Ninkovich or Anderson) (1) misses the point, namely that upgrading the offense by X is just as impactful as upgrading the defense by that same X (2). We can quibble over whether particular moves represent greater value that others by that standard, but I think the proposition that an upgrade on offense would be dollar-for-dollar less useful or impactful than an equivalent upgrade on defense should be questioned; and, even if that WAS the case, it isn't clear whether the marginal utility of improving the defense instead of the offense, value otherwise being equal, is all that great.

The first rounder is of course a big consideration here, but I would have to be convinced that the pick PLUS the allocation of the money not used for Wallace would outweigh the value Wallace represents. I'm not sure that that is the case, especially when you consider Wallace's unique skillset and the health questions about Mario Williams (not to mention the attrition rate of late first rounders), for instance.

I also think it is misleading to characterize Mike Wallace as a potential 'third option'(3), as if he wouldn't see like 95% of the snaps and bring in God knows how many 20+ yard plays and TDs; moreover, he'd be an investment in a post-Welker WR corps.

1. I do not, and will not, agree with this point. I think the value of adding a pass rusher to the defense would be far more help to the team than adding a WR to the already-excellent pass catching crew under contract. Exempting Tom & Vince, there isn't a defensive player on the roster with the value of Gronkowski and it's arguable if there's a defensive player with the value of Hernandez.

My point continues to be that with pass catching options already in house, expending big money or draft pick(s) on a WR is wasteful. I'm not saying they don't need a new WR or two...but they don't need a STAR. They have two. They need options. Wallace, for the $ & the pick, would need to be pretty fucking awesome to be "value". And given Brady's tempestuous history with WR, we'd all better pray that Wallace doesn't fuck up an out route in his first practice or the expensive guy who also cost a first round pick becomes the latest to get frozen out. Let's not pretend that Brady can work with ANYONE - he can't. He's a bit of a bitch about his WRs and no one can guarantee me that Mike Wallace won't be 3/10ths of a second late reading the safety and turning to the wrong shoulder when Brady throws his hands up and then - well, we've all seen it.

The offense will not be "bad" if they don't get a big name, big contract WR. It won't be "bad" if they let Welker walk. They've got a the best TE and another top 5 TE and they've got Brady (and his binkie, Branch will be back). It could be worse. Like the defense.

2. I would argue the best way to help the defense, via the offense, is to focus more on possession, TOP and grinding out drives when in possession of a lead. A change in play calling strategy would help the defense immensely. A running game that rips off a few 20+ yard plays would help the passing game. An improved play action game would help keep the ball, improve field position and THAT would help the defense.

There's lots of ways to help the defense, via the offense, and almost all of them are not dependent on getting a big money "#1 WR".

3. OK, the second option. Happier? The #1 option on this team, now and for the forseeable future, is GRONK. It's a proven fact - get him the ball and he makes big plays. If he were a free agent, we would covet him as a "#1 option", especially in the red zone. So let's can the talk of needing a "#1". Is Hernandez good enough to be a #2? I think he is - YMMV. So if you need an "upgrade" at #2, you bump Hernandez to #3, where he's indisputably the best #3 pass catching threat on any team in the NFL. R

Replacing Deion Branch was replacing the #4 option in the passing game. It's a firstworldproblem. Unlike the pass rush, which is a thirdworldproblem.

[DaubachmanTurnerOD]

Do people think that there is room under the cap to both franchise/sign Welker and sign Mo Williams (who I assume will cost more than Wallace)? If not, is Lloyd expected to be cheap enough that Lloyd plus Williams might work?

Thus, is the (hypothetical) choice: Welker & Wallace (who sounds like could command around $10m/yr.) or Lloyd & Williams?

If so, I'd be really torn.

[ivanvamp]

1. I do not, and will not, agree with this point. I think the value of adding a pass rusher to the defense would be far more help to the team than adding a WR to the already-excellent pass catching crew under contract. Exempting Tom & Vince, there isn't a defensive player on the roster with the value of Gronkowski and it's arguable if there's a defensive player with the value of Hernandez.

My point continues to be that with pass catching options already in house, expending big money or draft pick(s) on a WR is wasteful. I'm not saying they don't need a new WR or two...but they don't need a STAR. They have two. They need options. Wallace, for the $ & the pick, would need to be pretty fucking awesome to be "value". And given Brady's tempestuous history with WR, we'd all better pray that Wallace doesn't fuck up an out route in his first practice or the expensive guy who also cost a first round pick becomes the latest to get frozen out. Let's not pretend that Brady can work with ANYONE - he can't. He's a bit of a bitch about his WRs and no one can guarantee me that Mike Wallace won't be 3/10ths of a second late reading the safety and turning to the wrong shoulder when Brady throws his hands up and then - well, we've all seen it.

The offense will not be "bad" if they don't get a big name, big contract WR. It won't be "bad" if they let Welker walk. They've got a the best TE and another top 5 TE and they've got Brady (and his binkie, Branch will be back). It could be worse. Like the defense.

2. I would argue the best way to help the defense, via the offense, is to focus more on possession, TOP and grinding out drives when in possession of a lead. A change in play calling strategy would help the defense immensely. A running game that rips off a few 20+ yard plays would help the passing game. An improved play action game would help keep the ball, improve field position and THAT would help the defense.

There's lots of ways to help the defense, via the offense, and almost all of them are not dependent on getting a big money "#1 WR".

3. OK, the second option. Happier? The #1 option on this team, now and for the forseeable future, is GRONK. It's a proven fact - get him the ball and he makes big plays. If he were a free agent, we would covet him as a "#1 option", especially in the red zone. So let's can the talk of needing a "#1". Is Hernandez good enough to be a #2? I think he is - YMMV. So if you need an "upgrade" at #2, you bump Hernandez to #3, where he's indisputably the best #3 pass catching threat on any team in the NFL. R

Replacing Deion Branch was replacing the #4 option in the passing game. It's a firstworldproblem. Unlike the pass rush, which is a thirdworldproblem.

Great post, IMO. I think it's possible that they can upgrade both the offense and the defense this offseason. As you said, one way to help the defense is to be better on offense. What I'd like to see - and I've been advocating this for a few years now - is, as you point out, a greater use of the running game. I know Brady is the best weapon they have so they need to maximize him, but what I want is an offense that can - and *DOES* - hit you in every way possible. I want them to be able to just run the ball down your throats and be committed to it as the situation demands. But I also want them to be explosive when they need to be and have the ability to rally from 21 points down in the 2nd half or go on a 3 play, 75 yard scoring drive in less than a minute. Yes, I want it all on offense. I think they can accomplish this simply by (a) adding a guy like Lloyd, and (b) altering their philosophy a little and being willing to be more committed to the run.

Let's say, by restructuring/releasing guys they can have about $30 million in cap space. Assume $10 mil of that goes to rookies and re-signing veterans. Adding a guy like Lloyd won't be super cost-prohibitive, and it will allow them to re-sign (or franchise) Welker, and still have money left over to go after defense. I think they could spend $7 per year on Welker (3-year deal), $6 per year on Lloyd (3-year deal), and have about $7 million left over for defensive help. I don't think they could get Mario Williams, but they could get something useful.

And then they could go after defense almost exclusively in the draft. Banks has the Pats getting Cox and Hightower in the first round. I don't think they'll keep both those picks, but adding one of them would probably be pretty helpful.

[Super Nomario]

My point continues to be that with pass catching options already in house, expending big money or draft pick(s) on a WR is wasteful. I'm not saying they don't need a new WR or two...but they don't need a STAR. They have two. They need options. Wallace, for the $ & the pick, would need to be pretty fucking awesome to be "value". And given Brady's tempestuous history with WR, we'd all better pray that Wallace doesn't fuck up an out route in his first practice or the expensive guy who also cost a first round pick becomes the latest to get frozen out. Let's not pretend that Brady can work with ANYONE - he can't. He's a bit of a bitch about his WRs and no one can guarantee me that Mike Wallace won't be 3/10ths of a second late reading the safety and turning to the wrong shoulder when Brady throws his hands up and then - well, we've all seen it.

I haven't seen Brady have any problems working with WR who are good. There aren't any examples of him failing to work with a WR and then that guy going on to do well elsewhere.

[Mystic Merlin]

1. I do not, and will not, agree with this point. I think the value of adding a pass rusher to the defense would be far more help to the team than adding a WR to the already-excellent pass catching crew under contract. Exempting Tom & Vince, there isn't a defensive player on the roster with the value of Gronkowski and it's arguable if there's a defensive player with the value of Hernandez.

Ok. We're at an impasse, then.

My point continues to be that with pass catching options already in house, expending big money or draft pick(s) on a WR is wasteful.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree - I don't see the diminishing returns of an upgrade at WR. The concern over allocating too much salary to the spot is a fair one, however. I would say that the pending twilight years of Welker's career diminish that concern, as he probably won't be around at a large salary in 2 seasons.

I'm not saying they don't need a new WR or two...but they don't need a STAR. They have two. They need options. Wallace, for the $ & the pick, would need to be pretty fucking awesome to be "value".

If he is himself, namely a guy who averages 18.7 YPC while catching 65+ balls, then he is 'pretty fucking awesome'. The balls are there for him (after all, Deion Branch caught 51 passes in 2011).

I don't understand the 'need' paradigm you've set up, since I'd argue outside receiver is a 'need' (and WR is a long-term need period given Welker's age), and that Welker is probably not hogging 115-20 balls for much longer. That luxury may not be there going forward, and, if that is the case, you are stuck with an aging WR corps that can't pick up the slack, and Gronk and Hernandez having to own the middle of the field 24/7/365 (since neither are guys who will stretch the field).

And given Brady's tempestuous history with WR, we'd all better pray that Wallace doesn't fuck up an out route in his first practice or the expensive guy who also cost a first round pick becomes the latest to get frozen out.

This is really overstating this factor, but, yes, it is a concern. I personally think Wallace is so good that it won't be a problem, but I could certainly be wrong.

Let's not pretend that Brady can work with ANYONE - he can't. He's a bit of a bitch about his WRs and no one can guarantee me that Mike Wallace won't be 3/10ths of a second late reading the safety and turning to the wrong shoulder when Brady throws his hands up and then - well, we've all seen it.

Again, no argument here.

The offense will not be "bad" if they don't get a big name, big contract WR. It won't be "bad" if they let Welker walk. They've got a the best TE and another top 5 TE and they've got Brady (and his binkie, Branch will be back). It could be worse. Like the defense.

I don't get what you're saying here. In any case, the fact it wouldn't be 'bad' absent XYZ is irrelevant - they should look to maintain or improve the overall talent level/quality of the team, and that may require that they plan for a post-Welker world (and the drop from great WR/Gronk/Leaf to Gronk/Leaf/? may be bigger than you think) by nabbing an great WR. Saying 'it won't be bad, so what is the problem, allocate more resources to the D' strikes me as specious reasoning because it assumes a world in which a vast range of offensive outcomes (and dangerously assumes their place at the top of that world) are acceptable, because they can improve the D by a greater factor than they would suffer on O 1, 2, 3, etc., years down the road. I'm not sure I buy into that, since I'd argue maintaining a great offense is more difficult - and more important, given the landscape of the NFL - than building a D that can win a title. Their best hope of competing in today's NFL may be maintaining an elite passing attack while doing what they can defensively. Improvement on D will be easier to get, IMO, given the JAGs they have been running out there that can be readily improved on (safety is the glaring area), and I think the slip in the passing offense could be precipitous if you put too much faith in Gronk/Hernandez to carry you. You could find yourself leaving the firstworld pretty fast, in other words, whereas you can hope to improve the D to league average (this will not be a top defense anytime soon, sorry) with tweaks and development. That's the model they have, and it is arguable their best path to success going forward.

2. I would argue the best way to help the defense, via the offense, is to focus more on possession, TOP and grinding out drives when in possession of a lead. A change in play calling strategy would help the defense immensely. A running game that rips off a few 20+ yard plays would help the passing game. An improved play action game would help keep the ball, improve field position and THAT would help the defense

I think what would help the defense is getting off the field, which didn't happen as much as it needs to this year with or without TOP supremacy. And, yeah, all things being equal, you would rather eat more clock on touchdown drives, that is obvious. But I see their problem with TOP being a problem later in games, when they can't run the ball well enough, consistently enough, to finish games that way.

There's lots of ways to help the defense, via the offense, and almost all of them are not dependent on getting a big money "#1 WR".

You're being uncharitable to the opposing view, IMO. We don't just want a new toy - we see Wallace as a great receiver who fits in beautifully, in theory, on the outside, and limits the defense's ability to flood the middle and man up on the outside (well, the better defenses anyway), and also provides a post-Welker focal point for the group (why this investment wouldn't be seen in light of the fact Welker has a few more years as a top WR is unclear to me). If scoring more points and diversifying the offense doesn't help the defense, I don't know what to say other than that we won't ever agree on anything w/r/t team-building.

3. OK, the second option. Happier? The #1 option on this team, now and for the forseeable future, is GRONK. It's a proven fact - get him the ball and he makes big plays. If he were a free agent, we would covet him as a "#1 option", especially in the red zone. So let's can the talk of needing a "#1". Is Hernandez good enough to be a #2? I think he is - YMMV. So if you need an "upgrade" at #2, you bump Hernandez to #3, where he's indisputably the best #3 pass catching threat on any team in the NFL.

I look at it as a matter of skill sets - Wallace brings something to the table neither of those two do, namely a vertical threat. I don't see pass-catching options as fungible in that sense.

Replacing Deion Branch was replacing the #4 option in the passing game. It's a firstworldproblem. Unlike the pass rush, which is a thirdworldproblem.

But, again, we're back to square one. I look at the pass rush options, and I see question marks as well (Mario Williams coming off of a pec injury, and a Texans D that didn't skip a beat when he went down), and then I consider the difficulty of finding one in the draft. I think they need help at S and OLB/DE, and I'd be thrilled if they addressed either or both areas, but I think Wallace is a great fit in terms of skillset/productivity/age. We clearly disagree on the first premise, namely whether an upgrade at DEF = an upgrade at OFF. I don't accept that an upgrade at DEF > upgrade at OFF, and I'm weighing the same factors you are (just differently).

Edited by Mystic Merlin, 22 February 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[soxfan121]

Excellent rebuttal. Thanks for that.

I was on the Wallace (and let Welker walk) idea pretty early but I've backed away because it's cash AND a pick. I love Wallace's skill set and if it were one or the other, I could endorse it. But it's both and that's why it's wasteful. (and adding Welker to it makes it ridiculous - best case, the Pats have $25M in cap space and to lock ~$18-20M in WR just ain't happening.

Jackson, or another of the FA WR class, makes far more sense than Wallace; I agree Jackson (or others) is not as great as Wallace but he (or others) cost significantly less.

I think part of the reason many here would give up the 1st round pick and the contract to Wallace is frustration with and the inevitability of Trader Bill yet again turning two into one. I think every Pats fan is wondering why we bother to follow the draft when Bill is gonna trade down and out, again. Signing Wallace would be CASHING IN on that forever-forward-first rounder. Soon, the Welker Precedent will be invoked and expectations will mount...and it'll end up another "disappointing" off-season where they re-signed their own guys, shopped at Costco in FA and traded down & out in the draft.

I don't think the Patriots are signing Mario Williams or Mike Wallace or anyone else at, or near, the top of their positional scale. They've already got Brady, Mankins & Vince being paid like the best at their position and Welker's tag adds another "top of the scale" salary. Gronk will require a deal like that very soon and, no, he's not gonna settle for the AAV of a "franchise tight end". He'll be aiming to re-define the pay scale at that position, with Hernandez not far behind. I have no doubt they'll sign a couple of WR and a couple pass rushers but it won't be the sexy name guys that you or I might have floated in a moment of weakness. I was wrong to project they sign Avril, Carr & Wallace - it ain't happening.

They're gonna franchise Welker and use the remaining ~$15M in cap space to sign a bunch of under-publicized guys. I'm gonna go start drinking heavily.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Excellent rebuttal. Thanks for that.

I was on the Wallace (and let Welker walk) idea pretty early but I've backed away because it's cash AND a pick. I love Wallace's skill set and if it were one or the other, I could endorse it. But it's both and that's why it's wasteful. (and adding Welker to it makes it ridiculous - best case, the Pats have $25M in cap space and to lock ~$18-20M in WR just ain't happening.

Jackson, or another of the FA WR class, makes far more sense than Wallace; I agree Jackson (or others) is not as great as Wallace but he (or others) cost significantly less.

I think part of the reason many here would give up the 1st round pick and the contract to Wallace is frustration with and the inevitability of Trader Bill yet again turning two into one. I think every Pats fan is wondering why we bother to follow the draft when Bill is gonna trade down and out, again. Signing Wallace would be CASHING IN on that forever-forward-first rounder. Soon, the Welker Precedent will be invoked and expectations will mount...and it'll end up another "disappointing" off-season where they re-signed their own guys, shopped at Costco in FA and traded down & out in the draft.

I don't think the Patriots are signing Mario Williams or Mike Wallace or anyone else at, or near, the top of their positional scale. They've already got Brady, Mankins & Vince being paid like the best at their position and Welker's tag adds another "top of the scale" salary. Gronk will require a deal like that very soon and, no, he's not gonna settle for the AAV of a "franchise tight end". He'll be aiming to re-define the pay scale at that position, with Hernandez not far behind. I have no doubt they'll sign a couple of WR and a couple pass rushers but it won't be the sexy name guys that you or I might have floated in a moment of weakness. I was wrong to project they sign Avril, Carr & Wallace - it ain't happening.

They're gonna franchise Welker and use the remaining ~$15M in cap space to sign a bunch of under-publicized guys. I'm gonna go start drinking heavily.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Pats sign Wallace and trading Welker for a good cornerback. Wallace is just another animal, seems like that pure deep threat that this team has really lacked since Moss in 2007. Wallace isn't Moss in his prime but is still an elite option.

[SMU_Sox]

Excellent rebuttal. Thanks for that.

I was on the Wallace (and let Welker walk) idea pretty early but I've backed away because it's cash AND a pick. I love Wallace's skill set and if it were one or the other, I could endorse it. But it's both and that's why it's wasteful. (and adding Welker to it makes it ridiculous - best case, the Pats have $25M in cap space and to lock ~$18-20M in WR just ain't happening.

Jackson, or another of the FA WR class, makes far more sense than Wallace; I agree Jackson (or others) is not as great as Wallace but he (or others) cost significantly less.

I think part of the reason many here would give up the 1st round pick and the contract to Wallace is frustration with and the inevitability of Trader Bill yet again turning two into one. I think every Pats fan is wondering why we bother to follow the draft when Bill is gonna trade down and out, again. Signing Wallace would be CASHING IN on that forever-forward-first rounder. Soon, the Welker Precedent will be invoked and expectations will mount...and it'll end up another "disappointing" off-season where they re-signed their own guys, shopped at Costco in FA and traded down & out in the draft.

I don't think the Patriots are signing Mario Williams or Mike Wallace or anyone else at, or near, the top of their positional scale. They've already got Brady, Mankins & Vince being paid like the best at their position and Welker's tag adds another "top of the scale" salary. Gronk will require a deal like that very soon and, no, he's not gonna settle for the AAV of a "franchise tight end". He'll be aiming to re-define the pay scale at that position, with Hernandez not far behind. I have no doubt they'll sign a couple of WR and a couple pass rushers but it won't be the sexy name guys that you or I might have floated in a moment of weakness. I was wrong to project they sign Avril, Carr & Wallace - it ain't happening.

They're gonna franchise Welker and use the remaining ~$15M in cap space to sign a bunch of under-publicized guys. I'm gonna go start drinking heavily.

I'm with you on this one. I can see MM's point of view but I respectfully disagree.

However I disagree with what they are going to do with the money. I think they'll sign a top of the line guy on D. I also believe they'll sign a Jackson type and let Welker walk.

You're looking at an average defense at best that will come back next year unless they get help. The offense OTOH will be top 10 just going in. I can't fathom BB not spending more on D unless he truly believes he can upgrade it through low-cost options and the draft.

[ivanvamp]

I wouldn't mind seeing the Pats sign Wallace and trading Welker for a good cornerback. Wallace is just another animal, seems like that pure deep threat that this team has really lacked since Moss in 2007. Wallace isn't Moss in his prime but is still an elite option.

Again though, why not have your cake and eat it too? Re-sign Welker, add Lloyd (giving you the talented, explosive deep threat), save some $$ (instead of Wallace), keep your draft picks, and go hard after defense from there? We don't need another Moss to complement Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, and Branch. We want something better than Underwood and Slater, obviously, but it doesn't have to be an "elite" WR. Lloyd at his best is really, really good, and his skill set is perfect for what this team needs, offensively speaking.

[Super Nomario]

They're gonna franchise Welker and use the remaining ~$15M in cap space to sign a bunch of under-publicized guys. I'm gonna go start drinking heavily.

I don't disagree, but I think this is a reasonable strategy; the Pats did almost win the Super Bowl last year. Re-sign the guys you need to, use most of the draft picks and turn one or two into a future next year, and sign a couple mid-level free agents. Seems like a good plan to me.

[Rough Carrigan]

Regarding soxfan121's desire for a better running game, isn't there at least some case to be made that a wide receiver who's a real vertical threat will keep the opposition's safeties from creeping up to the line and from leaving cornerbacks alone when one of the pats' WR's actually does run a deep route?

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 22 February 2012 - 10:35 PM.

[BigSoxFan]

Regarding soxfan121's desire for a better running game, isn't there at least some case to be made that a wide receiver who's a real vertical threat will keep the opposition's safeties from creeping up to the line and from leaving cornerbacks alone when one of the pats' WR's actually does run a deep route?

Agreed. And it also makes that jumbo formation that they like (ugh) a bit more dynamic. Ultimately, Mike Wallace would add a dimension to this offense that I believe would prevent teams from creeping up on our TEs. A 31 year-old Brandon Lloyd doesn't excite me nearly as much.

[ivanvamp]

Agreed. And it also makes that jumbo formation that they like (ugh) a bit more dynamic. Ultimately, Mike Wallace would add a dimension to this offense that I believe would prevent teams from creeping up on our TEs. A 31 year-old Brandon Lloyd doesn't excite me nearly as much.

But it's not Lloyd vs. Wallace. It's Lloyd + a 1st round pick + probably about $4-5 million a year vs. Wallace. (and maybe it's Lloyd + 1st rounder + $4-5 mil vs. Wallace *minus* Welker)

In a vacuum, yes, of course, Wallace seems like the better choice. It's not in a vacuum, however.

[jsinger121]

What are people's thoughts are not signing Wallace but keeping the pick and signing Stevie Johnson who is unlikely to be franchised by Buffalo?

[phragle]

The problem with signing Wallace isn't that we'd be giving up a first. It's that we'd be giving up three second rounders, a third rounder, a fourth rounder, and a stud linebacker in the 2016 NFL draft.

[Judge Mental13]

I like Stevie, but I'm all set. The guy gets whistled for stupid penalties and he drops way too many balls, especially in the end zone. Pass. He has all the issues of DeSean Jackson and a fraction of the talent.

[jsinger121]

Stevie Johnson isn't even in the top 20 of dropped passes in the AFC let alone the leader on his own team.

http://stats.washing...&rank=232&year=

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

Stevie Johnson isn't even in the top 20 of dropped passes in the AFC let alone the leader on his own team.

http://stats.washing...&rank=232&year=

He has a reputation for dropping passes because he seems to have a knack for dropping passes in big spots in games.

[ragnarok725]

He has a reputation for dropping passes because he seems to have a knack for dropping passes in big spots in games.

How many examples of this are there?

[phragle]

How about drop rate instead of total drops?

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

How many examples of this are there?

Agsint the Steelers in 2010 he dropped a TD pass at the end of the game http://sports.yahoo....?urn=nfl-289770
And agsint the Jets in 2011 he dropped two critical passes, one of which was likely a TD. http://articles.nyda...-darrelle-revis

And I think he had one this year against the Pats or did I make that up?

[pappymojo]

I think part of the reason many here would give up the 1st round pick and the contract to Wallace is frustration with and the inevitability of Trader Bill yet again turning two into one. I think every Pats fan is wondering why we bother to follow the draft when Bill is gonna trade down and out, again. Signing Wallace would be CASHING IN on that forever-forward-first rounder. Soon, the Welker Precedent will be invoked and expectations will mount...and it'll end up another "disappointing" off-season where they re-signed their own guys, shopped at Costco in FA and traded down & out in the draft.

I couldn't possibley disagree more strongly with this sentiment. I love that the Patriots take the long-term view with their resource allocation and team management. Listen, the reason we are even entertaining the idea of adding Wallace to this team, is because we have the available resources to do so (and I'm not just talking about a second first round draft pick). I'm talking about available room under the salary cap. This on a team that just played in the super bowl, that just had a 13 win season and that had a 14 win season the year before. You know what team would be a good spot for Wallace? The fricking Steelers. Too bad they are in salary cap hell. We have room under the salary cap. How can that be? On a team with one of the best quaterbacks of all time, how do we still have salary cap room? It's because of the number of players on our team that are playing on their rookie contracts. Young players are cheap players. And if Belichick can turn 1 cheap player (based on 1 late first round pick) into 3 cheap players (trading that late first round pick for a second round pick and a first round pick in the coming year, and then the next year doing the same), that's awesome. It's a distinct advantage to our team that very few organizations have.

Edited by pappymojo, 23 February 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[Shelterdog]

I couldn't possibley disagree more strongly with this sentiment. I love that the Patriots take the long-term view with their resource allocation and team management.

The real question is whether you should depart from the long term view and cash-in on picks or overpay on contracts because you want to maximize the "Brady window."

I understand it but I'm personally against it: we don't know if Brady plays one year or five, and once Brady is gone I'm still going to want the Patriots to win games.

Team's ability to trade a pick in draft X for higher picks in year X+1 (or to trade down a round and still pick up an equally high pick the next year) is a massive market inefficiency and, despite the bitching and moaning people do, it really helps the team. One pretty remarkable example: they traded their 2009 third round pick (89th overall) to the Titans for a 2010 second pick. They traded the Titans 2010 second round pick (47) for Arizona's 2010 second (58) and third (89). They traded 58 for 62 and 150 and drafted Spikes and Mesko; they traded 89 for the panther's 2011 second, and took Dowling at 33. With patience one third round pick turned into an early second, a late second, and a fifth. Why would you not make that move every single time?

Why would you not keep making moves like that?

[pappymojo]

The real question is whether you should depart from the long term view and cash-in on picks or overpay on contracts because you want to maximize the "Brady window."

I understand it but I'm personally against it: we don't know if Brady plays one year or five, and once Brady is gone I'm still going to want the Patriots to win games.

Team's ability to trade a pick in draft X for higher picks in year X+1 (or to trade down a round and still pick up an equally high pick the next year) is a massive market inefficiency and, despite the bitching and moaning people do, it really helps the team. One pretty remarkable example: they traded their 2009 third round pick (89th overall) to the Titans for a 2010 second pick. They traded the Titans 2010 second round pick (47) for Arizona's 2010 second (58) and third (89). They traded 58 for 62 and 150 and drafted Spikes and Mesko; they traded 89 for the panther's 2011 second, and took Dowling at 33. With patience one third round pick turned into an early second, a late second, and a fifth. Why would you not make that move every single time?

Why would you not keep making moves like that?

The point that I was trying to add is that in addition to turning one third round pick into an early second, a late second, and a fifth, those three players (Spikes, Mesko and Dowling) are all playing for CHEAP money which in turn allows us to better manage our salary cap and to better afford "star" players. I think the economics of Belichick's draft trading is seriously overlooked.

It's really hard for constantly successful teams to manage their salary caps but the Patriots have been able to do it. Look at the other teams being mentioned as potential landing spots for Wallace. San Fran, Denver, the Bengals, the Ravens. These are teams with late picks in the first round and available money under the salary cap. Of those four teams, only one has been a successful team for more than one year (the Ravens). The 49ers, the Broncos, the Bengals, last year, the year before, those teams sucked. But because they sucked, they were able to build their teams through the draft, aquiring good players at cheap prices.

[ragnarok725]

Agsint the Steelers in 2010 he dropped a TD pass at the end of the game http://sports.yahoo....?urn=nfl-289770
And agsint the Jets in 2011 he dropped two critical passes, one of which was likely a TD. http://articles.nyda...-darrelle-revis

And I think he had one this year against the Pats or did I make that up?

Needless to say, three, four, or even 10 balls does not a significant trend make. If he really has this reputation, and it really impacts his value on the open market... well then that makes him more attractive to me, because I think he'd be undervalued for a meaningless sample of plays. The guy's drop rate is not out of the ordinary. The fact that some of them have come on more visible plays doesn't change that.

[soxfan121]

First, I don't disagree. It's an effective way to build a team. It's got a proven track record. My complaint is that it's BORING. And that's not an argument about it's effectiveness (or, its inevitability, because we all know it's coming) - it's just a lament about the lack of "exciting" off-season talk. This banter about Wallace is pointless; he's not a fit with the "maximize value" because he costs a first round pick (which can be swapped for multiple picks who become multiple cost-effective players) and he costs a contract at or near the top of the WR pay scale.

You don't suddenly change course and CASH IN those extra pieces to get a guy like Mike Wallace; he's very good or great but he's not Jerry Rice/Randy Moss in-their-primes and he's not, in any way, "value" because he'll cost close to Fitzgerald money plus a first rounder. They will trade one or both of the first rounders, target players who fit their system, trade down some more to net extra picks and get their targets at the cheapest slot possible, lather, rinse and repeat.

Second, the counter-argument to the "trade down & out" strategy is Clay Matthews. The Patriots have "passed on" premier talents to run their draft-day plan and while one 3rd round pick can become Spikes, Mesko and Dowling, it also results in passing on players like Matthews - impact, star-quality players who would fit a glaring need. Now - I'm not gonna argue that the trade that removed the Patriots from position to draft Matthews eventually netted them a pick that allowed them to pick Gronkowski. That's a fact. But they had 2nd rounder already, so they didn't NEED to pass on Matthews to secure Gronk; they could have had both. That is worthy of investigation and criticism - even a tiny bit - because Ron Brace & Darius Butler were selected instead. And around and around we go...

So while the Patriots approach to the draft (and acquiring veteran players, for that matter) has been focused on "value" and has yielded results, it's not without flaws. And my major critique is that it's boring; it does not allow for fans to "dream big" in a realistic way or to "get into" the NFL draft like other fan bases. There's very little likelihood that the Patriots will make two first round picks, despite having the ability to do so. They've signed RFA wide receivers and given up draft picks as compensation - but the contract was an all-time "VALUE" contract (5/$18M for Welker). They have never paid a guy premier money and given up a draft pick for his rights in the BB era. So we can assume it's not very likely. They will, almost certainly, sign a couple veteran WR who are left looking for chairs when the dust settles; they will, almost certainly, trade one or both of the first round picks for later-round selections and will take players most of us have never heard of and they will, most likely, use their available cap space to franchise Welker and then sign a bunch of mid-tier guys who probably played their best football elsewhere. If we're lucky, those mid-tier guys are more Brian Waters or Roman Phifer and less Steve Martin, Rodney Bailey and Albert Haynesworth.

So, yeah. They're gonna franchise Welker, sign a bunch of veteran FAs who used to be good (and maybe still are), trade down & out and I will drink heavily.

[tims4wins]

So, yeah. They're gonna franchise Welker, sign a bunch of veteran FAs who used to be good (and maybe still are), trade down & out and I will drink heavily.

All the way to 12+ wins, another division title, and hopefully another Super Bowl run

[soxfan121]

Can't argue with 3, 5 & 9.

Well, you can but anyone who tries just ends up sounding stupid.

September cannot come fast enough.

[ivanvamp]

All the way to 12+ wins, another division title, and hopefully another Super Bowl run

Yep. One thing about Belichick's system: it is absolutely, without question, a "proven" method by now. It works. It consistently puts the Pats in the upper tier of NFL teams every single year. Here are the NFL league standings post-2004 (so I'm not even including the Super Bowl seasons):

2005 - 10-6 (t11, won division)
2006 - 12-4 (t4, won division, lost in AFCCG)
2007 - 16-0 (1, won division, lost SB)
2008 - 11-5 (t6, missed playoffs due to freakish tiebreaker)
2009 - 10-6 (t8, won division)
2010 - 14-2 (1, won division)
2011 - 13-3 (t2, won division, lost SB)

AVG - 12-4, top 2 team in league 3 of last 5 years; top 10 in league 6 of last 7 years; 6 division titles; 2-1 in AFCCG; 2 SB appearances (both losses, unfortunately...oh well)

Just a model of consistent excellence. Hard to argue with Belichick's method.

[Super Nomario]

Second, the counter-argument to the "trade down & out" strategy is Clay Matthews. The Patriots have "passed on" premier talents to run their draft-day plan and while one 3rd round pick can become Spikes, Mesko and Dowling, it also results in passing on players like Matthews - impact, star-quality players who would fit a glaring need. Now - I'm not gonna argue that the trade that removed the Patriots from position to draft Matthews eventually netted them a pick that allowed them to pick Gronkowski. That's a fact. But they had 2nd rounder already, so they didn't NEED to pass on Matthews to secure Gronk; they could have had both. That is worthy of investigation and criticism - even a tiny bit - because Ron Brace & Darius Butler were selected instead. And around and around we go...

But these are two different criticisms. The Patriots didn't pass on Matthews because they traded back; they traded back because they didn't want Matthews. If he had been the #1 guy on their draft board, they would have stayed there and kept him. Clay Matthews was the 26th pick in the draft that year; the Pats weren't the only team who failed to see what he would become.

Michael Holley gets into this in War Room. The Pats had the #22 pick in the 2010 draft, and Devin McCourty as the #1 player on their board at that point. They traded back two spots to Denver, picking up a fourth-rounder, because they knew neither Denver nor Green Bay wanted a corner. Then Dallas offered them a third-rounder for a lower fourth-rounder and to move back from 24 to 27. They knew none of the teams picking 24-26 wanted a corner, so they did it. They had a chance to move out of 27, but with the Jets probably taking a corner at 29 (even though they suspected the Jets were higher on Kyle Wilson), they didn't chance it and took McCourty 27. So they got the guy they would have taken at 22, but picked up an extra third-rounder and improved their fourth rounder doing it.

The Pats are not trading back to exchange top-line talent for picks. They're trading back because differences in their board, needs, and draft strategies allow them to grab picks essentially for free while still getting the players they want.

[Shelterdog]

Second, the counter-argument to the "trade down & out" strategy is Clay Matthews. The Patriots have "passed on" premier talents to run their draft-day plan and while one 3rd round pick can become Spikes, Mesko and Dowling, it also results in passing on players like Matthews - impact, star-quality players who would fit a glaring need. Now - I'm not gonna argue that the trade that removed the Patriots from position to draft Matthews eventually netted them a pick that allowed them to pick Gronkowski. That's a fact. But they had 2nd rounder already, so they didn't NEED to pass on Matthews to secure Gronk; they could have had both. That is worthy of investigation and criticism - even a tiny bit - because Ron Brace & Darius Butler were selected instead. And around and around we go...

Clay Matthews wasn't a clear, impact, star quality player who fit a glaring need: he was the 26th pick in the draft, he was a one year starter in college with 4.5 sacks, and he was picked after guys like Larry English and Maybin. Of course he then put on 25 pounds of muscle between the combine and the end of his rookie year and he turned into a total monster so he was a great pick at 26 but don't make him more than he was at the time.

Also it's not realistic to say "we could have had Matthews and Gronk if only we didn't pick bad players." You're going to draft some Braces and Butlers along with your Gronks. It's an exercise in perfect hindsight. (Putting aside the fact that Gronk was a 2010 pick and Brace/Butler 2009 picks).

EDIT: Now excuse me, I'm going to go think about how dope my stock portfolio would be if I'd bought Apple in early 2008, which I could have done.

Edited by Shelterdog, 23 February 2012 - 11:36 AM.