Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Welker: Tender Signed


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
256 replies to this topic

Poll: Some questions on 83 (272 member(s) have cast votes)

How would you handle him?

  1. Franchise him (41 votes [20.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.50%

  2. Sign him to a long term deal no matter the cost (8 votes [4.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.00%

  3. Only sign him if it's a "reasonable" short to mid length contract; otherwise franchise him (129 votes [64.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 64.50%

  4. Only sign him if it's a "reasonable" short to mid length contract; otherwise let him walk (17 votes [8.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.50%

  5. Let him walk (5 votes [2.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.50%

What is he worth?

  1. Over $9.4M per year (the franchise number) (18 votes [9.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.00%

  2. $8M-$9.4M (60 votes [30.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.00%

  3. $6M-$8M (111 votes [55.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 55.50%

  4. < $6M (11 votes [5.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.50%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:13 PM

Page 96 of the CBA:

So the $9.4M would be on the 2012 cap; if the tagged player failed to report, that $9.4M would be reduced by 1/16th until he did report; the maximum the team "gets back" is $4.7M and it is applied to the Next League Year cap.


Looks like you're right although this is one that requires a PHD in capology.

#52 jk333

  • 1778 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:19 PM

Miami; Add Manning or Flynn and you've got a jacked & pumped fan base. Atlanta & San Francisco are playoff teams who could use the best possession WR in football; Chicago has potential playoff team and needs WR help. I think Kansas City might have a few fans of Welker in the organization. Washington has cap room and a history of signing 30+ vets, and they'll be looking for a weapon for their new QB.

Miami isn't an option, they have the highest paid slot receiver in the game and 14M/year in their top two receivers.
San Francisco has 16M in cap space but have to sign a safety and CB (Golson and Rodgers). Alex Smith is also up; that's most of their space.
Atlanta has Tony Gonzalez, Julio Jones and Roddy White; they don't need to spend 9M/yr on another receiver.
Chicago could use a WR and may be an option. Kansas City may also be an option.

#53 shoosh77

  • 658 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:25 PM

Pure guess, 4/$30mm, $22mm guaranteed. Some kind of out after year 3.

#54 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12259 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 01:06 PM

Pure guess, 4/$30mm, $22mm guaranteed. Some kind of out after year 3.


I'd agree with you on the guaranteed money and say 4/36, with the fourth year unlikely to be earned.

Something like $6mm to sign and 6/7/8/9 salaries, with the first 2 years and $3mm in year 3 guaranteed ($22mm total), would allow the Pats to cut Welker after 2014 for just a $1.5mm cap hit. After 2013, they could take a $6mm hit and cut him -- an unpalatable number, but one that would be more viable if the Pats can get rid of the $3mm guarantee in year 3.

Edited by maufman, 09 February 2012 - 01:09 PM.


#55 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 10138 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 06:08 PM


ESPNBoston @ESPNBoston

Source -- New England Patriots likely to use franchise tag on Wes Welker es.pn/zqYL4D



#56 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 8057 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 09:38 PM

Not surprising. Not using it would have been completely agsint the Patriots MO and would have made very little sense from a football perspective.

#57 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7344 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 01:06 AM

Two words: Josh Cribbs. Go and get this guy. He is bigger and more talented and would absolutely kill in the slot.

(null)

#58 Eck'sSneakyCheese


  • SoSH Member


  • 8615 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:19 AM

Two words: Josh Cribbs. Go and get this guy. He is bigger and more talented and would absolutely kill in the slot.

(null)


He can't stay healthy. Talent aside he's nowhere near as tough as Welker. Pass

#59 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:47 AM

Two words: Josh Cribbs. Go and get this guy. He is bigger and more talented and would absolutely kill in the slot.

(null)


Why in the world do you think a guy with 100 career catches in seven seasons can replace a guy who gets 100 catches a year?

It worked in your Madden dynasty, didn't it?

#60 Judge Mental13


  • designated driver


  • 4799 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:01 PM

Ashley Lelie was the stone cold Madden 2002 Dynasty lock that you always drafted because he would turn into Jerry Rice by age 28.

FWIW Incarcerated Bob broke this story last night before Schefter's tweet. Don't see Schef getting beat that often, gotta give Bob props there.

#61 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:19 PM

Broyles looks pretty interesting. Quick little powerful guy with more catches than anyone in fbs history and then tears his ACL. Looks like a guy who might replace Welker in 2013 but who slips in the draft because of his knee. Maybe pick him up at the end of the second?

#62 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7423 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:59 PM

Broyles looks pretty interesting. Quick little powerful guy with more catches than anyone in fbs history and then tears his ACL. Looks like a guy who might replace Welker in 2013 but who slips in the draft because of his knee. Maybe pick him up at the end of the second?

CBS has him as a fifth-rounder. In addition to his injury woes, he's small and lacks high-end speed. Kinda like Welker. I like the idea of using a fourth or something on him.

#63 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7423 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 01:19 PM

CBS has him as a fifth-rounder. In addition to his injury woes, he's small and lacks high-end speed. Kinda like Welker. I like the idea of using a fourth or something on him.

Reiss makes the point that the Pats doubled up at TE and RB the past two drafts and he wouldn't be surprised to see them do the same at receiver this year. Given the talent at the position, this makes sense to me; grab a Sanu or Hill early and someone like Broyles or Hilton later.

http://espn.go.com/b...ombine-takeaway

Edited by Super Nomario, 26 February 2012 - 01:20 PM.


#64 Otis Foster


  • rex ryan's podiatrist


  • 1095 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 01:23 PM

Sanu's 40 time was not good - 4.65.

#65 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7423 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 02:34 PM

Sanu's 40 time was not good - 4.65.

Wright ran just a 4.61. Maybe he slides enough that the Pats can make a play for him?

http://espn.go.com/b...up-on-a-few-wrs

#66 mpx42

  • 2528 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:43 PM

Wright ran just a 4.61. Maybe he slides enough that the Pats can make a play for him?

http://espn.go.com/b...up-on-a-few-wrs


This is very much what I'm hoping for - but until he proves otherwise I just don't think Belichick will draft a WR in the first round. I believe in 12 years Chad Jackson is his highest pick at the position.

#67 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7423 posts

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:10 PM

This is very much what I'm hoping for - but until he proves otherwise I just don't think Belichick will draft a WR in the first round. I believe in 12 years Chad Jackson is his highest pick at the position.

Jackson is, but you might be reading too much into this. They've only made 10 first round picks, so there are bound to be positions they've never drafted in the first. Jackson was the 36th pick, which is barely out of the first round. I do think it's more likely that they trade back and take Sanu or somebody in the second (since it seems like a couple of the four or five first-roundish WRs will slip), but if they think Wright is a great fit for the system I think they would use a first on him.

#68 pappymojo

  • 1463 posts

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:30 AM

The difference between Mankins and Welker was that Mankins was going to be paid almost nothing for that year anyway...Welker will be losing out on a lot of money by skipping games.


Another key difference between the Mankins situation (in 2010) and Welkers this year is that Mankins needed to report that year to become an unrestricted free agent.

http://espn.go.com/n...-football-terms

1. Familiar free agency is back: Free agency returns to the way it was done from 1993 through 2009. A player needs four years of experience to become an unrestricted free agent. In the uncapped year of 2010, players needed six years of experience to hit the open market. That puts 448 players on the market, starting July 28. Owners tried and failed to slow the potentially hot market by asking for right-of-first-refusals on three players, but players vetoed that notion, complaining that 236 budding unrestricted free agents in 2010 were relegated to restricted free-agent status. Restricted free agency is limited to players with three years of experience.


Also, this is a good article about the franchise tag this year.

http://www.nationalf...-Time-1330.html

the new CBA formula for determining the Tag number is looking back five years at the top five Salaries at each position (“Salaries” include salaries plus proration), rather than a looking only to last year. The result of this calculation is that Tag numbers are down from last year an average of $2 million per position!


The Tag gives teams an advantage with the two particular skill positions that have proven the most difficult to predict long-term success: running backs (projected Tag of $7.7 million) and wide receivers (projected Tag of $9.4 million).

These are the two positions where decline can come swiftly and irrevocably. The Tag allows teams to avoid being locked into a contract while such decline is happening before their eyes. I expect several Tags to be used here. As we speak, the Tag is being used as leverage in negotiations with running backs Ray Rice and Matt Forte, and receivers DeSean Jackson, Dwayne Bowe and Wes Welker.



#69 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7423 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:52 AM

Reiss breaks it down. Pats have until 4 PM tomorrow to franchise WW: http://espn.go.com/b...-day-for-welker

#70 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7344 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:17 AM

Why in the world do you think a guy with 100 career catches in seven seasons can replace a guy who gets 100 catches a year?

It worked in your Madden dynasty, didn't it?

Welker never had more than 67 catches in a year until 2007.

I don't play Madden. But you don't have to to think Cribbs would thrive in Belichick's system. The guy is incredibly dynamic and has, at best, had Colt McCoy throwing to him.

I agree that health is a concern -- but it's also extremely unlikely that anyone replicates Welker's production, period. If the plan is to allocate resources better than $9.4M on a slot receiver, and Lloyd is also a legit option, you could do a lot worse than Cribbs.

#71 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10127 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 01:08 PM

Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter


The Patriots will place their franchise tag on wide receiver Wes Welker by today's 4 pm deadline.



#72 KiltedFool


  • has a terminal case of creeping sharia


  • 1420 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 02:10 PM

Cribbs is also known for concussions on occasion.

By the way does anyone else continually mentally reference The Bonnie Situation when they read the thread title?

#73 dcdrew10

  • 916 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 02:37 PM

By the way does anyone else continually mentally reference The Bonnie Situation when they read the thread title?


I picture Samuel L. Jackson with a jheri curl talking about what an explosive element this Bonnie Situation is every time I read the title.

#74 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10127 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 02:59 PM

Officially tagged per Greg Bedard.

#75 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25528 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 03:06 PM

Updated the thread title with the new information.

#76 KiltedFool


  • has a terminal case of creeping sharia


  • 1420 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 03:12 PM

Rendering my musing on the Bonnie Situation as the mere ramblings a la Reverend Ignatowski..

#77 bakahump

  • 4780 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 03:30 PM

While I love what Welker has done for us over the years and have a serious non gay man crush on him.....I think this is a bad idea.

IMHO Younger, "just as safe", just as expensive investments where/are out there. Or younger cheaper players are there to be developed into a replacement.

I am seriously hoping that this is a 1 and done Franchise and not a prelude to a Long term deal (and certainly not the first of an even more expensive Franchise next year).

I just think that Welkers best years are behind him (certainly in 2013 and beyond) and that paying him 6-8 million per season will be an overpay. 9 will be a (slight) overpay this coming year.....but one we can afford.

#78 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 7423 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 03:36 PM

While I love what Welker has done for us over the years and have a serious non gay man crush on him.....I think this is a bad idea.

IMHO Younger, "just as safe", just as expensive investments where/are out there. Or younger cheaper players are there to be developed into a replacement.

They have to decide to franchise him now, or risk him walking away for nothing. If they could be 100% sure they could get one of the guys you're talking about (not sure who) at a cost they're comfortable with, maybe they risk it, but worst case scenario is Welker leaving for nothing and the Pats having to either overspend for a replacement or suffer a serious downgrade at the position.

I am seriously hoping that this is a 1 and done Franchise and not a prelude to a Long term deal (and certainly not the first of an even more expensive Franchise next year).

I just think that Welkers best years are behind him (certainly in 2013 and beyond) and that paying him 6-8 million per season will be an overpay. 9 will be a (slight) overpay this coming year.....but one we can afford.

I think the Pats would like to do a deal but won't do one that hurts them financially. They can let Welker play one year on the tag, draft a potential replacement and assess where they are next year if they can't work something out. I don't think there's any chance Welker gets franchised a second year at $11+ MM.

#79 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15116 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 03:47 PM

I was wrong. I hope this is the precursor to a 3 year deal with less than $20M but I've been wrong on this since the beginning. And I really hope he shows up ready, if not happy, at camp - he probably will. As noted, I was wrong.

#80 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11104 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:04 PM

I was wrong. I hope this is the precursor to a 3 year deal with less than $20M but I've been wrong on this since the beginning. And I really hope he shows up ready, if not happy, at camp - he probably will. As noted, I was wrong.


So you are saying you are wrong?

I'm happy about this. Welkers tag, not you being wrong.

Well, that too.

Edited by Dogman2, 05 March 2012 - 04:04 PM.


#81 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21582 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:06 PM

Haven't you heard the expression that 'once a man admits he is wrong he is immediately absolved of all wrongdoing'?

#82 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11104 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:08 PM

I'm saying I'm glad he is wrong for the sake of having Welker back.

That and I like it when he is wrong. Which is a lot.

You might say he is consistently wrong.

HA!

Edited by Dogman2, 05 March 2012 - 04:09 PM.


#83 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:14 PM

I'm saying I'm glad he is wrong for the sake of having Welker back.

That and I like it when he is wrong. Which is a lot.

You might say he is consistently wrong.

HA!


To be fair, his prediction that they don't re-sign Welker might be wrong but his analysis that they shouldn't re-sign Welker and should spend $ on defense instead is still open for debate.

EDIT: Also, re-signing Welker in 2013 is probably a lot cheaper than re-signing him in 2012 given his advancing age.

Edited by Shelterdog, 05 March 2012 - 04:14 PM.


#84 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11104 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:21 PM

To be fair, his prediction that they don't re-sign Welker might be wrong but his analysis that they shouldn't re-sign Welker and should spend $ on defense instead is still open for debate.

EDIT: Also, re-signing Welker in 2013 is probably a lot cheaper than re-signing him in 2012 given his advancing age.


Too easy.

The team still has money to spend on D. Tagging Welker does not completely prohibit the team from signing FA's. In fact, it doesn't prohibit them at all.

I agree with your second part.

#85 mpx42

  • 2528 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:30 PM

It'd be nice to lower the cap hit but maybe the team would rather franchise him twice in a row and pay 20m over 2 years as opposed to giving him a long term contract, or perhaps trying to resign him later when his skills have diminished somewhat.

But you have to do tag him now - Welker has too much impact on this offense as currently constructed to let him test the free agent market.

#86 Shelterdog


  • SoSH Member


  • 8805 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:32 PM

Too easy.

The team still has money to spend on D. Tagging Welker does not completely prohibit the team from signing FA's. In fact, it doesn't prohibit them at all.

I agree with your second part.


Yeah but they could spend more on d (or a deep threat) if they didn't spend $9.4 on Welker.

I'm all for re-signing Welker by the way.

#87 quint


  • I learned this face in prison


  • 2187 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 05:59 PM

Too easy.

The team still has money to spend on D. Tagging Welker does not completely prohibit the team from signing FA's. In fact, it doesn't prohibit them at all.


So, if I'm reading you correctly, and I believe that I am, the sky is indeed not falling?

#88 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12259 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 06:15 PM

How many years are left in the Brady window? How much gas does Welker have left in the tank?

My answers are that the window is open for three more years (tops), and Welker should be good for at least the next two seasons.

Therefore, if the Pats can ink a 4-5 year deal that brings Welker's cap number down to $6-7mm in 2012, and maybe a million more in 2013, they should jump on it -- knowing that it's going to be like passing a kidney stone when they cut him in 2015.

#89 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 14340 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 06:19 PM

I'd say the "Window" is, barring a major injury or the onset of chronic ones, anywhere from 3-5 years. With the rules protecting QBs now, and the fact that Brady's strengths (accuracy and decision making) shouldn't degrade too much over the next few years, I think he could have 5 more productive years.

#90 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11104 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 06:25 PM

So, if I'm reading you correctly, and I believe that I am, the sky is indeed not falling?


How would you ever, ever come to that conclusion? I mean, seriously. You have a working brain right? RIGHT?

Coming to rational conclusions about these things shouldn't take long but I can understand that it might take someone a bit longer given the amount of data processing, talent evaluation, salary cap study and overall football knowledge going through one's head at any one time. I'll give you a pass here, buddy.

Just use your head next time.

Okay?

#91 JohnnyTheBone

  • 4120 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 06:46 PM

Stevie Johnson signed a five-year, $36.25 million deal that includes $19.5 million guaranteed and about $24 million in the first three years of the deal. I have to think a similar contract could be worked out with Welker. If so, the Pats should do it. Even at his age, Welker will be better than Stevie Johnson over the next 3 years.

#92 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15116 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 07:20 PM

The team still has money to spend on D. Tagging Welker does not completely prohibit the team from signing FA's. In fact, it doesn't prohibit them at all.


No one EVER made the argument that it would "prohibit" the team from signing FAs. In fact, that's a stupid argument. It limits their ability to sign multiple "impact" players on defense, but that's too nuanced an opinion for you to take seriously. I mean, ~23 - 9.4 is more than you can do with your fingers and toes, so of course it's acceptable for you boil it down to something a bit more comprehensible.

But if my being wrong is something that brings you happiness, I'll oblige. It'll keep happening and you can ignore it, read the post and argue about it or continue to be a prick.

#93 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 11104 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:04 PM

No one EVER made the argument that it would "prohibit" the team from signing FAs. In fact, that's a stupid argument. It limits their ability to sign multiple "impact" players on defense, but that's too nuanced an opinion for you to take seriously. I mean, ~23 - 9.4 is more than you can do with your fingers and toes, so of course it's acceptable for you boil it down to something a bit more comprehensible.

But if my being wrong is something that brings you happiness, I'll oblige. It'll keep happening and you can ignore it, read the post and argue about it or continue to be a prick.


You are an idiot. Second, that's an incredible over-simplification of the argument I made for keeping Welker. The primary reason was changing a very successful offense as little as possible to continue with the ability to score more points than the other team. The Pats M.O. is almost never to spend a ton of cash on big names on either side of the ball thus inhibiting other portions of their game. In this way, tagging Welker doesn't prohibit anything.


I'll make you a deal...I'll stop being a prick when you stop being wrong and using your noggin for something other than a hat rack. Okay?

BTW, this won't happen until after the Saints penalties are handed out. Why, you ask? Because you are way, way off on that too.

#94 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30161 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:47 PM

@WesWelker
Glad that I will be a Patriot in 2012. and hopefully '13,'14,'15,'16,'17,'18..........


Edited by SoxScout, 05 March 2012 - 11:47 PM.


#95 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 5094 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 01:41 AM

I agree that 121 is wrong about the penalties for the Saints. I disagree that wanting to spend more on the defense is/was a bad idea. The bottom line is they might have overpaid 2-3m for Welker this year. That's not a terrible move, in fact it is a good one. Like my wife with a few drinks in her, Welker is a sure thing. The Pats should probably look at adding one more WR, I like Jackson or Lloyd (or draft one - there are a lot of good options), and resign depth on the D-Line, C, and ILB. They'll likely pick up a veteran S, and CB as well as use the draft to shore those spots up.
Again though, I don't think anyone here should fault someone for advocating signing a blue chip FA on D. It's a reasonable strategy/investment. Maybe BB splurges on an ILB, who knows. My dream scenario is that Mario Williams will come here for 7-8m a year for 5 years. Is that going to happen? Well, maybe there is a one in a million chance.


Edited by SMU_Sox, 06 March 2012 - 01:42 AM.


#96 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15116 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:35 AM

Second, that's an incredible over-simplification of the argument I made for keeping Welker. The primary reason was changing a very successful offense as little as possible to continue with the ability to score more points than the other team. The Pats M.O. is almost never to spend a ton of cash on big names on either side of the ball thus inhibiting other portions of their game. In this way, tagging Welker doesn't prohibit anything.


It prevents multiple "impact" defensive signings, which was my point all along. The few times the Pats have stretched for big names (Colvin, Thomas) they did so without a franchise tag* on their cap. As we both know, they rarely spend within ~$5M of the ceiling - whether the changes to NLTBE bonuses changes that core philosophy is to be determined.

But ultimately, you are correct - tagging Welker should not prohibit them from one "impact" signing. If that signing is another WR, I'll be pissed; it's too much $ to spend on one position. (IOW, Mike Williams & Vincent Jackson are no longer options)

*Was Vinateiri tagged in 2003 or 2004 for the first time? Either way, they tagged a kicker, not a player with a consequential salary.

Edited by soxfan121, 06 March 2012 - 08:37 AM.


#97 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25528 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:39 AM

It prevents multiple "impact" defensive signings, which was my point all along. The few times the Pats have stretched for big names (Colvin, Thomas) they did so without a franchise tag on their cap. As we both know, they rarely spend within ~$5M of the ceiling - whether the changes to NLTBE bonuses changes that core philosophy is to be determined.

But ultimately, you are correct - tagging Welker should not prohibit them from one "impact" signing. If that signing is another WR, I'll be pissed; it's too much $ to spend on one position. (IOW, Mike Williams & Vincent Jackson are no longer options)


Even if they hadn't tagged Welker, I couldn't see the Pats spending $20 million+ on Mario Williams (who I love) to come here. For better or worse (and in the BB era it's been much for the better) the Pats don't like to tie up that much cap space in one player.

And frankly Williams is the only impact defensive signing I can see possible right now. The Pats' other sore spot on defense is safety, but there's few good FAs available there either (and the draft class isn't very good for safeties to boot).

So, if they can't/won't afford Williams, and there's no other player worthy of an impact FA signing on D, why wouldn't they make a push for Jackson or Williams?

#98 TheoShmeo


  • made johnny damon think long and hard


  • 8243 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:46 AM

It prevents multiple "impact" defensive signings, which was my point all along. The few times the Pats have stretched for big names (Colvin, Thomas) they did so without a franchise tag* on their cap. As we both know, they rarely spend within ~$5M of the ceiling - whether the changes to NLTBE bonuses changes that core philosophy is to be determined.

But ultimately, you are correct - tagging Welker should not prohibit them from one "impact" signing. If that signing is another WR, I'll be pissed; it's too much $ to spend on one position. (IOW, Mike Williams & Vincent Jackson are no longer options)

*Was Vinateiri tagged in 2003 or 2004 for the first time? Either way, they tagged a kicker, not a player with a consequential salary.

Why would or should you be pissed? There's reason to believe that the Pats offense is missing one piece -- an outside, fast WR. Sure, when everyone is healthy, they were able to prosper. But if any of Welker, Hernandez or Gronk is dinged, the lack of someone on the outside is problematic. We saw that in the SB and we saw that in the Jets playoff game, when Aaron wasn't himself. (Yes, I know, different teams/years, but a common link is that the Pats offense in both playoff losses did not have all of its key receiving parts in good health).

Sure, the Pats have big needs on D, but they have many high picks and have shown an ability to find cheap yet effective free agents for the D. And their expensive free agents on D in the past have not always panned out (though Colvin did perform well at times).

My point is that no free agent signing in isolation should piss you off. If the Pats decide to augment the receiving group with a big name free agent like Wallace (or better, somone one who doesn't cost a pick), we should only be upset if the sum total of their other moves this off season doesn't adequately address the defense. And the opposite is also true. If the Pats don't address the need (in my view) for an outside WR threat in high end free agency, we should only gnash our teeth over that if they don't spend the money on other needs and otherwise fill in at WR.

#99 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12413 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:53 AM

I don't know about soxfan, but so much for Welker being pissed.

Tend to think they may be able to work something out longer term. Still would like some help on the outside.

#100 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 15116 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:53 AM

The free agent CB market is still pretty good (Finnegan, Carr) and signing one them to start, opposite Dowling (and pushing Arrington/Moore to nickel/dime duty) and moving McCourty to safety is an option. If Kamerion Wimbley is cut in the next few days, he'd qualify as the starting OLB the defense needs.