256 replies to this topic

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I am not impressed with Finnegan. And I think the Pats see McCourty's future at CB; he was very good in his rookie year and the Pats aren't going to throw away the rest of his CB career solely on the basis of one tough year.

[soxfan121]

Why would or should you be pissed?

Allocating $9.4M for the tag plus $8-12M on a guy like Jackson or Wallace (who also costs a first round pick) is a spectacular misuse of resources. I don't think Brady can throw deep effectively so my preference all along has been to re-sign Branch, find a veteran WR to compete with Chad, and add a pick. Brady excels with guys who run precise routes; the only "deep threat" he's ever used effectively was the greatest deep threat in the history of the NFL. An outside WR with speed who isn't afraid to run slants? Sign me up. A guy who "wants the ball" and runs go or post routes? That is a bad fit for Brady's skill set at this point in his career. But more than that - it's bad allocation of resources especially since Gronk & Hernandez will need new contracts after the 2013 season.

[TheoShmeo]

Allocating $9.4M for the tag plus $8-12M on a guy like Jackson or Wallace (who also costs a first round pick) is a spectacular misuse of resources. I don't think Brady can throw deep effectively so my preference all along has been to re-sign Branch, find a veteran WR to compete with Chad, and add a pick. Brady excels with guys who run precise routes; the only "deep threat" he's ever used effectively was the greatest deep threat in the history of the NFL. An outside WR with speed who isn't afraid to run slants? Sign me up. A guy who "wants the ball" and runs go or post routes? That is a bad fit for Brady's skill set at this point in his career. But more than that - it's bad allocation of resources especially since Gronk & Hernandez will need new contracts after the 2013 season.

I don't think players/WRs are so easily categorized. Even Moss, who people characterize as not willing to go inside, caught his share of passes over the middle during his time in NE. That a player is able to run go patterns doesn't mean he'll be a ball hog in NE and will be unable to do other things (and do them well).

I just don't hear the waste of resources point and think you're understating the Pats need for another receiving weapon (for the reasons I stated above).

As to Gronk and Hernandez at the end of 2013, I can't see not addressing a need because of the need to do something two seasons from now. Yeah, if healthy and still productive, those two players will be a lot to deal with at that time, but two years is two years, and a lot can happen in the interim. And one thing that will happen in the interim is that two years will be lopped off Brady's window. That argument can be extended way too far, but I still don't see passing on important pieces because of Aaron and Rob in 2013.

I also don't see such a problem in making one position, particularly WR, incredibly strong. The Pats are a passing offense, as we know, so having the right weapons at WR is paramount.

Last, Branch was good in spots last year, but he was, as usual, injured at times, and clearly has lost some speed. In some games, he was a non-factor or taken out of the offense for large segments. Ocho? If he couldn't figure out the offense enough to be useful for more than a handful of plays per game by the end of last season, what makes us think he'll somehow figure it out next year?

[Dogman2]

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.

I agree with you on another 9-13mil spent on the WR position. I don't want to see this either but I think adding one more WR that's cost effective and then concentrating on FA's and the draft to upgrade the defense are the next moves.

[Shelterdog]

I agree with you on another 9-13mil spent on the WR position. I don't want to see this either but I think adding one more WR that's cost effective and then concentrating on FA's and the draft to upgrade the defense are the next moves.

If you're keeping two or more of Ocho/Welker/Branch you are really want to add a younger guy, and since Mike Wallace is the only young top end free agent and he'll probably be prohibitvely expensive adding a draft pick (or two or three) makes the most sense.

I'm not hung up on spending too much in cash at receiver if you use your other resources (high picks) on defense.

[SoxScout]

I would definitely do what's needed to get Wallace if his personality and all that checks out. Outside of Mario Williams, he is the best addition addition we can make that will aid us in making another deep run in the playoffs. After Williams, I don't know where people want to spend all this money on defensive free agents. I think I like Michael Bennett and Kendall Langford as the next best options, but I'm not breaking any bank to get them.

You add Wallace, and in the first and second round maneuver to acquire 2 or 3 defensive players, you're in business in my book.

Edited by SoxScout, 06 March 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[bakahump]

Could the Pats have "tendered" Welker? IE could they have forced another team to give up a pick had that other team signed Welker.

Basically could they have gotten for Welker what Pitt is going to get for Wallace IE a pick(should he sign somewhere else)?

Or was that not an option due to Service time?

[Shelterdog]

Could the Pats have "tendered" Welker? IE could they have forced another team to give up a pick had that other team signed Welker.

Basically could they have gotten for Welker what Pitt is going to get for Wallace IE a pick(should he sign somewhere else)?

Or was that not an option due to Service time?

They use the non-exclusive franchise tag on him, which is kind of like a tender but the cost is so high (two first round picks) that almost nobody ever signs a player who's been tagged with it.

There's also an exclusive franchise tag, which the saints used on Brees, and other teams can't sign you if you are hit with that tag.

The tenders you're thinking about aren't available to players who have been in the league more than four years.

Edited by Shelterdog, 06 March 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[bakahump]

Thanks Shelter.

I was curious if they could have tendered Welker....signed Wallace (losing their 1st round pick) but gained a 1st round back from the team that signed Welker. Basically upgrading the WR postion and "standing pat" with picks.

Evidently not an option.

[Stitch01]

The Pats could still, theoretically, sign Wallace and then trade Welker's rights for a first like they did with Branch in '06.

[SoxScout]

I'm all for adding Wallace, but not if it leads to the exit of Welker, totally counterproductive in my opinion. If we are not pairing those two, give me Welker any day.

[Stitch01]

Im not advocating it, just saying that just because there wasnt a first-round tender option doesnt mean the option is off the table.

Edited by Stitch01, 06 March 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[Shelterdog]

Im not advocating it, just saying that just because there wasnt a first-round tender option doesnt mean the option is off the table.

?????

[bakahump]

I'm all for adding Wallace, but not if it leads to the exit of Welker, totally counterproductive in my opinion. If we are not pairing those two, give me Welker any day.

I am thinking last year we had a top 3 offense with the "2 TEs and 1 WR Target" offense.

If we add in more use of the RBs in the form of Screens and running as part of the "McDaniels Tweak"....I think we can easily stay a top 3-5 offense.

Static move you say?

Well I think that going forward Wallace is a better bet to
1. Stay healthy
2. May actually improve the offense by diversifying the areas of the field that we attack consistently.
3. Keeps Bradys window open for all 5 years rather then 1-3

In regards to #2 I am not sure if having Welker and the 2 TEs doesn't actually mute the offense a bit by allowing defenses to sag towards the line of scrimmage and collapse inside the numbers (where all 3 of Welker, Gronk and Hernandez do most of their work). Having a player like Wallace capable of going up and out (while the TEs work the middle) OR working the middle (while one of the TEs works a seam) I believe could well improve the offense by making it more unpredicatable. To me its basically a question of too much traffic in too small a space when you have Welker, Gronk and Hernandez. Successful? Hell yes. But Success one way does not preclude (more) success another.

Losing a draft pick would be a tough pill to swallow. However if you could "replace the pick" lost when signing Wallace, with a pick gained by trading Welker I think thats a win. (And I agree the odds of that are very low).

I also feel that over the course of a contract that we expect both players to want that Wallace might not be the better option. Maybe he and Welker are the same this year as far as production....and maybe they are the same next year....but moving beyond that I think Wallace begins to blow Welker out of the water.

Its true Wallace would be more expensive (but looking like not by much over the next 2-3 years) however with the (pretty much inevitable) inflation of the salary cap that can be mitigated. Plus the fact that year in and year out the multitude of picks Belichick acquires allows us to spend on superstars as we stash young solid talent on the cheap.

I will grant you that Wallace over Welker is a long term gain and short term stay. However If we talk about "the Window" I think having a player at 28 in 4 years is alot better for the Brady Window then a player who is 34. We need to think how best to manage ALL 5 years of that window....not just the next 1 or 2.

This year seemed like the perfect storm to me. Ample Cap space. WR corp in need of a jolt. Previous WR a FA, expensive and 31. Options include a 24 yo FA WR who would be just as (or a little more) expensive (but not by a whole heck of alot). Plus we had an extra #1 to enable to transaction. Plus The fact that the 24yo FA WR is one of the few guys who I would feel comfortable in knowing could replace the outgoing Pro Bowlers production.

All that said....The Patriot brain trust doesnt seem to agree.

It would be a bold move....

[Stitch01]

?????

The option Im referring to is of paying a first to add Wallace while dealing Welker's rights for a pick. Even though the Pats couldnt tender Welker a first-round offer since he isnt an RFA, they could theoretically sign Wallace for a first and turn around and deal Welker for whatever pick the market would bear. I dont think they are headed in this direction.

[dbn]

I'm not sure I agree with the oft-stated opinion that player X (usually Wallace) is more likely to stay healthy than is Welker. The age difference is in favor of that sentiment, but Welker is a freaking cyborg.

Also, one aspect of this discussion that either hasn't been addressed (or, more likely, I've missed) is the relative up-/down-grades. For example, in a scenario where Welker departs and they sign Wallace, the calculus isn't [+ deep outside WR - quick slot receiver], but rather [+ upgrade from Branch to Wallace - downgrade from Welker to Edelman]. It's somewhat moot, as it now appears that, baring a trade, Welker will be back.

[MannysDestination]

Allocating $9.4M for the tag plus $8-12M on a guy like Jackson or Wallace (who also costs a first round pick) is a spectacular misuse of resources. I don't think Brady can throw deep effectively so my preference all along has been to re-sign Branch, find a veteran WR to compete with Chad, and add a pick. Brady excels with guys who run precise routes; the only "deep threat" he's ever used effectively was the greatest deep threat in the history of the NFL. An outside WR with speed who isn't afraid to run slants? Sign me up. A guy who "wants the ball" and runs go or post routes? That is a bad fit for Brady's skill set at this point in his career. But more than that - it's bad allocation of resources especially since Gronk & Hernandez will need new contracts after the 2013 season.

That's nonsense, and Belichick would never agree with you.

The franchise tag being applied to Welker is either a) a sunk cost, or b) a prelude to a longer deal and an upper limit of Welker's cap impact (i.e. a sunk cost). All other personnel decisions going forward have nothing to do with what other individuals on the roster are being paid at a given position, they are made given what all other people on the roster combined are being paid relative to remaining cap space.

In other words, I have no doubt whatsoever that Belichick would be willing to pay two WRs $20M if he could fill out the rest of the roster effectively. Using that line of reasoning is the purview of ESPN analysts and message boards, not Belichick. Of course, factoring in individual contracts can matter when considering trade potential to make room for further acquisitions, but again I don't think the position itself is material, rather it's the whole team impact of any moves. If Belichick thinks the best team he can field has $20M spent on WR and a bunch of near-minimum guys in the defensive backfield, he'll do it, no question.

That being said, I really doubt that Belichik thinks that we're one more high priced WR away from a super bowl and that this is much ado about nothing. Welker isn't fungible, he and Brady have a lot of experience together and he 'gets it'.

Edited by MannysDestination, 06 March 2012 - 05:06 PM.

[Shelterdog]

That's nonsense, and Belichick would never agree with you.

The franchise tag being applied to Welker is either a) a sunk cost, or b) a prelude to a longer deal and an upper limit of Welker's cap impact (i.e. a sunk cost). All other personnel decisions going forward have nothing to do with what other individuals on the roster are being paid at a given position, they are made given what all other people on the roster combined are being paid relative to remaining cap space.

In other words, I have no doubt whatsoever that Belichick would be willing to pay two WRs $20M if he could fill out the rest of the roster effectively. Using that line of reasoning is the purview of ESPN analysts and message boards, not Belichick. Of course, factoring in individual contracts can matter when considering trade potential to make room for further acquisitions, but again I don't think the position itself is material, rather it's the whole team impact of any moves. If Belichick thinks the best team he can field has $20M spent on WR and a bunch of near-minimum guys in the defensive backfield, he'll do it, no question.

That being said, I really doubt that Belichik thinks that we're one more high priced WR away from a super bowl and that this is much ado about nothing. Welker isn't fungible, he and Brady have a lot of experience together and he 'gets it'.

That's a big, and important, if. It's pretty hard to effectively fill out your roster on defense (which was bad in 2011) and ST (ok in 2011) only using cheap free agents and some draft picks, particularly since your offense was very good, and you defense very bad, so marginal improvement should come more easily on defense.

EDIT: Some teams apparently do try to manage the cap by setting aside a particular amount of cap space for each position group (QBs get 14% of the cap or whatever); apparently Philly does this to some extent. I assume the Pats would take your approach.

Edited by Shelterdog, 06 March 2012 - 05:56 PM.

[soxfan121]

That's nonsense, and Belichick would never agree with you.

In other words, I have no doubt whatsoever that Belichick would be willing to pay two WRs $20M if he could fill out the rest of the roster effectively.

Interesting - got a source or an example that documents Belichick thinks it's "nonsense" and disagrees?

And you've got the point - spending ~$20M on two WR only makes sense if the rest of the roster is filled, effectively. Currently, the team is missing a starting safety, a starting OLB, a starting Center, at least two depth DTs, a depth DE/OLB, someone to take Sergio Brown's roster spot, a special teams captain and a couple WR. Given their draft preferences, it's likely they won't use both 1s and both 2s; at least one of each will be traded. They will add 15-20 new bodies before camp - draft picks, a couple FA, some re-signed FAs, some UDFAs.

Using ~$20M of the team's ~$23M in cap room on two WR is a spectacular mis-allocation of resources.

[quint]

Except again, for about the billionth time, you have no idea what Welker's final cap number is going to look like, or what rates the market will set for each free agent WR.

Continually touting twenty million as as some sort of scripture for signing two wide receivers is absurd.

Edited by quint, 06 March 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[soxfan121]

What is the best case on Welker's final cap number? Worst case it's $9.4M. Welker reportedly was offered 2/$16M, which I've heard termed by people who are not Welker as "lowball and insulting". YMMV, but it's clear the average is going to be somewhere north of $8M/season - it's the length that is probably more in dispute.

What is the cheapest AAV contract Mike Wallace signs? Vincent Jackson?

For reference:

Larry Fitzgerald currently has a $20M cap hit.
Calvin Johnson is $17.75M
Brandon Marshall is $10.4M
Bowe, Welker, DeSean is $9.4M
Andre Johnson is $9.3M
Santonio Holmes is $9.25M
Sidney Rice is $9M
Steve Smith is $8.1M
Roddy White is $8M
Greg Jennings is $7.9M

The seasonal average for a top of the market, free agent WR like Jackson or Wallace is most likely going to exceed the franchise tag ($9.4M) and likely puts those guys in the top 5 at the position ($10M/season on the cap).

Lastly, you'll notice that I use "~" frequently to denote an estimate. In this case, I suppose I could be more precise and say ~$18M in cap hit for two WR is too much.

[quint]

What is the best case on Welker's final cap number? Worst case it's $9.4M. Welker reportedly was offered 2/$16M, which I've heard termed by people who are not Welker as "lowball and insulting". YMMV, but it's clear the average is going to be somewhere north of $8M/season - it's the length that is probably more in dispute.

What is the cheapest AAV contract Mike Wallace signs? Vincent Jackson?

For reference:

Larry Fitzgerald currently has a $20M cap hit.
Calvin Johnson is $17.75M
Brandon Marshall is $10.4M
Bowe, Welker, DeSean is $9.4M
Andre Johnson is $9.3M
Santonio Holmes is $9.25M
Sidney Rice is $9M
Steve Smith is $8.1M
Roddy White is $8M
Greg Jennings is $7.9M

The seasonal average for a top of the market, free agent WR like Jackson or Wallace is most likely going to exceed the franchise tag ($9.4M) and likely puts those guys in the top 5 at the position ($10M/season on the cap).

Lastly, you'll notice that I use "~" frequently to denote an estimate. In this case, I suppose I could be more precise and say ~$18M in cap hit for two WR is too much.

I can agree with that. And I probably should have worded my response in a much more constructive fashion.

My overall point is that at first glance, the wideout market is going to be flooded with more top tier talent than there is realistic top dollar landing spots. Other than engaging in some wishful thinking, I don't believe (and this is just my personal opinion) that any of the really big names i.e. Vincent Jackson, Mike Wallace will realistically be landing in New England. There are however, quite a few other attractive options out there that may come short; either on cash or years, gambling on next years market.

That being said, they may not as well. What I do know is the free agent signing period begins in one week and numbers that appear set in stone right now; cap space contract numbers, et al will probably look fairly different in seven days.That's all.

[bakahump]

but Welker is a freaking cyborg.

Is that a documented Medical condition?

God love him, he came back from a devastating injury very quickly and productive. And at that time I made Wolverine jokes too.

However I think I would bet on the science of "cumulative hits" (as witnessed by say 100s of NFL players) as opposed to the "Freaking Cyborg-itis" you cite.

Dude is a stud and I really like him (from what I have read) and appreciate all he has done for the team but assuming into his mid 30s he will continue to take hard hits (like he has historically taken) and suffer no effects or injuries is IMHO short sighted.

[Shelterdog]

The option Im referring to is of paying a first to add Wallace while dealing Welker's rights for a pick. Even though the Pats couldnt tender Welker a first-round offer since he isnt an RFA, they could theoretically sign Wallace for a first and turn around and deal Welker for whatever pick the market would bear. I dont think they are headed in this direction.

Even if you wanted to I'd be pretty surprised if you could get a one for Welker: the next team is inheriting his contract so you're either giving up a one for a one year rental or you're giving up a one knowing that you have to spend some serious scratch to re-sign him. Anquin Boldin is the closest analogy I can think of-a terrific receiver getting into his 30s and in need of a new contract-and he got traded (with a fifth) for a third and a fourth.

[Stitch01]

Even if you wanted to I'd be pretty surprised if you could get a one for Welker: the next team is inheriting his contract so you're either giving up a one for a one year rental or you're giving up a one knowing that you have to spend some serious scratch to re-sign him. Anquin Boldin is the closest analogy I can think of-a terrific receiver getting into his 30s and in need of a new contract-and he got traded (with a fifth) for a third and a fourth.

You'd presumably be trading his rights to a team willing to meet his long-term demands, but I dont actually think they'd get a first for him either.

[dbn]

Is that a documented Medical condition?

God love him, he came back from a devastating injury very quickly and productive. And at that time I made Wolverine jokes too.

However I think I would bet on the science of "cumulative hits" (as witnessed by say 100s of NFL players) as opposed to the "Freaking Cyborg-itis" you cite.

Dude is a stud and I really like him (from what I have read) and appreciate all he has done for the team but assuming into his mid 30s he will continue to take hard hits (like he has historically taken) and suffer no effects or injuries is IMHO short sighted.

Fair enough, my comment did have a degree of flippancy to it. I agree that "cumulative hits" is a consideration. That said, from an observation/anecdotal viewpoint he appears to me a guy who has a talent at avoiding the big blow. He's in the middle of the field a lot, but a large part of the reason he has so many receptions is that he's open in the middle. When the tackle does come, he (it seems to me) is either already turned up field, is going to the ground to avoid a jarring blow, or being shoved out of bounds. He has played in 16, 16, 16, 16, 14, 15 and 16 games in his 7 seasons.

[MannysDestination]

Doesn't look like a holdout is part of Welker's strategy:

Asked if he was OK with the franchise tag, Welker said, "Yeah, for sure. It will be half of what I made my whole contract this past (time) around. Not too bad."

When asked if there was any progress on the contract front, Welker responded, "Not that I know of. The only progress that I know of is the same, as far as the franchise tag."

Welker was then asked if that was disappointing to him.

"Not really," he answered. "That's a lot of money, so I'm definitely kind of excited about it."

http://espn.go.com/b...ngland-patriots

Nice to see a guy being paid almost 10 million dollars to play the sport he loves happy about it!

[ragnarok725]

Doesn't look like a holdout is part of Welker's strategy:

http://espn.go.com/b...ngland-patriots

Nice to see a guy being paid almost 10 million dollars to play the sport he loves happy about it!

Yeah I mentioned this upthread. The guy has never had the huge payday that a lot of franchise guys have gotten or could expect to get. The combination of having no leverage and never having gotten the payday meant he would have to be happy with the franchise tag. Sound like he is.

I wouldn't be shocked to see him have another 100 catch year under the franchise tag and then force the Pats to tag again next year.

[soxfan121]

Yeah I mentioned this upthread. The guy has never had the huge payday that a lot of franchise guys have gotten or could expect to get. The combination of having no leverage and never having gotten the payday meant he would have to be happy with the franchise tag. Sound like he is.

I wouldn't be shocked to see him have another 100 catch year under the franchise tag and then force the Pats to tag again next year.

Second tag is 120% - probably $11.5M or more, depending on the average salary of WR (which almost certainly went up this off season thanks to Calvin Johnson and Vincent Jackson, etc.)

[MannysDestination]

Also worth noting that Welker, while positive in his comments today, has yet to sign his franchise tender offer. Given the fact that he was the Pats' uniform model and the tone of his comments overall I think that we don't have to worry about a holdout, but it is still technically possible.

[tims4wins]

I see the Pats tagging him next year then letting him walk. He gets $20M over 2 years, Pats get to avoid a long term commitment.

[Stevie1der]

Also worth noting that Welker, while positive in his comments today, has yet to sign his franchise tender offer. Given the fact that he was the Pats' uniform model and the tone of his comments overall I think that we don't have to worry about a holdout, but it is still technically possible.

Ruh roh...

Adam Schefter: http://espn.go.com/b...welkers-no-show

"(Welker) hasn't signed the franchise tender," Schefter says in the video above. "He does not intend to sign the franchise tender at this time. He wants that long-term deal that all these players want. The two sides have been unable to bridge their differences. As long as there's no long-term deal, Wes Welker does not plan to sign that franchise tender at this point in time."

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

To be fair, I don't think BB wants him to sign it either. I'm sure BB and Welker have had a conversation along the lines of "We'd rather not have you fuck up our salary cap this year. Let's keep negotiating and see if we can come up with something before the final deadline to sign that franchise tag."

Unless Welker misses time from mandatory training camp, I'm not worried even a little bit.

[Ed Hillel]

I'm not worried either, but this makes his earlier comments about being happy to play for that money this year a bit odd.

[Stitch01]

Has any non-kicker besides Fred Davis signed his tag? There's very, very little reason to sign a tag at this point in the league year.

[koufax32]

I'm not worried either, but this makes his earlier comments about being happy to play for that money this year a bit odd.

I disagree. I don't think these two apparent contradictions are all that incompatable with each other. Happy does not necessarily imply #1 choice. I look at those comments as "that's really not a bad worst case scenario." Of course he'd prefer a long term deal with more guaranteed money. He's merely saying that being tagged doesn't suck.

[soxfan121]

There's very, very little reason to sign a tag at this point in the league year.

Is it your opinion that the off-season program has "very, very little" value?

There's no reason to sign the tag if the player thinks there is a long-term deal being worked on (KFP's scenario above) OR if the player is pissed about the lack of a long-term deal. The former is no big deal; the latter is a big deal, albeit not a big deal right now.

In any case, it's not unexpected. Welker should be looking at this as the last $9.5M he's ever going to earn as a football player and he should be ticked off that the team has limited his ability to earn what he is worth. I hate the franchise tag.

[Stitch01]

Is it your opinion that the off-season program has "very, very little" value?

There's no reason to sign the tag if the player thinks there is a long-term deal being worked on (KFP's scenario above) OR if the player is pissed about the lack of a long-term deal. The former is no big deal; the latter is a big deal, albeit not a big deal right now.

In any case, it's not unexpected. Welker should be looking at this as the last $9.5M he's ever going to earn as a football player and he should be ticked off that the team has limited his ability to earn what he is worth. I hate the franchise tag.

I would say it has very little value compared with the optionality of signing a long-term deal and the ability to give the team a little fuck you at little cost to the player. Im not exactly losing sleep about Welker not being in shape or not knowing the offense come September.

Given that, from what I can tell, one non-kicker has signed a franchise tag I dont think its any reason to worry. Almost everyone in this situation has decided there's no need to sign the tag yet and there's no evidence Welker is going to miss time or holds any real animosity for getting the tag.

[dbn]

Welker does not plan on attending mandatory workouts.

[TheoShmeo]

And Willie McGinest doesn't like that decision.

Former Patriots outside linebacker Willie McGinest, now serving as an analyst on NFL Network, had strong commentary on Wes Welker's approach to his contract situation.

Speaking on the "Total Access" program Tuesday (video here), McGinest laid into Welker.

"I just don’t like the diva attitude," McGinest said. "Let’s keep it real: prior to the Patriots, this is a guy who played three years, had 96 receptions and never had a 1,000-yard season. Due to a big part of the Patriots offensive system and Tom Brady, he’s had five years where he’s had over 100 catches. Of those five years until he got hurt [2010], he had over 1,000 yards receiving [each year].

"Let’s just keep everything in perspective: a big part of that is due to the Patriots … Let’s not forget that they signed Brandon Lloyd, they signed [Anthony] Gonzalez, they signed [Deion] Branch back, they have the two tight ends – they have weapons on that offense.

"So look Wes, it’s time to take off the leopard-printed cowboy boots, get off the party tour and get back to work. [During] my tenure in New England, no matter how big you were or who you were, nobody said that they weren’t coming to a mandatory minicamp. If you know anything about New England, understand that you’re expendable. Unless you’re Bill Belichick or Tom Brady, you’re expendable."

http://espn.go.com/b...elkers-approach

Given how much Willie got paid as a Patriot throughout his career, McGinest was in a much different position than Welker is now.

And I don't think Wilie is right about Welker being expendable. Branch has obvious limitations (frequent injuries, often didn't get open), Gonzalez is a crap shoot given all the injuries and Lloyd should be fine in this system but that there was so little market for him should tell us something. Yes, Welker was fortunate to play with Tom Brady, but a lot of other guys who played with Tom didn't produce anything remotely close to what Welker has given them.

My assumption is that Welker and the Pats will find a way to meet somewhere in the middle. I just hope it happens early enough so that the team's off season preparation wont be adversely affected.

And will the Pats be more likely to draft a WR than they would have if Welker's situation was resolved?

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

It was likely the Pats were going to draft a WR regardless of Wes' situation, especially with the rosters being expanded to 90. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple more added before camp.

As far as Wes goes, I hope the team can get this worked out before it gets ugly. As much as I want to say he's getting over 9 million dollars to play a game and he should shut his mouth and be a good "soldier" I also understand that he wants some stability and he's outperformed his previous contracts by rather large margins. I'm not a fan of holding out, it comes across as being extremely selfish and I think it will cast a bad light on Wes. It is unsettling that he's kind of flip-flopped from previous statements when he said he'd be happy to play for that amount of money. Maybe he just meant per year? Hopefully this is just a matter of the team finding out where they are financially after the draft and trying to get something done.

It would be difficult to replace his overall production but I don't think this offense would miss a beat without him, as much as that pains me to say. This team hasn't had anything close to Gronkowski and Hernandez in Welkers tenure here and with the addition of Lloyd I think that hurts any leverage he thought he had.

[epraz]

It is unsettling that he's kind of flip-flopped from previous statements when he said he'd be happy to play for that amount of money. Maybe he just meant per year? Hopefully this is just a matter of the team finding out where they are financially after the draft and trying to get something done.

Or maybe he's happy to play for $9MM a year, but he's not willing to participate in anything he doesn't have to. Mandatory workouts are only mandatory for those under contract.

[TheoShmeo]

It would be difficult to replace his overall production but I don't think this offense would miss a beat without him, as much as that pains me to say. This team hasn't had anything close to Gronkowski and Hernandez in Welkers tenure here and with the addition of Lloyd I think that hurts any leverage he thought he had.

I'm not so sure.

Tom will undoubtedly have a lot of weapons with or without Welker, but the SB reinforced to me that if any of Gronk, Hernandez and Welker are not at full strength, the Pats' passing offense will look a lot different. I note that the Pats' offense was similarly compromised when they played the Jets in the playoffs in the 2010 season, as Hernandez was not a full speed. Different team, different circumstances, I know, but the fact remains that after Gronk and Welker, the Pats didn't have a lot of receiving options, and I'm not sure that has really changed other than replacing Welker with Lloyd if you assume, for the sake of discussion, that Welker is gone.

It's hard to dispute that an offense with Welker, Lloyd, Hernandez and Gronk on the field at any one time would be extremely hard to match up against. I don't see anyone else in their present stable who could give them enough of what Wes provides to be able to replicate that combined threat. None of Edelman, Branch, Ocho or Gonzalez has shown that he can give them what Welker does, and it's hard for me to imagine any of them coming close.

We also don't know if Lloyd can thrive in an offense when he is one of many threats as opposed to being the primary target. Christain Fauria had some pretty damning things to say about Lloyd as a teammate from their days in Washington. Maybe Josh is a Lloyd Whisperer but until we see Lloyd prosper in NE, it remains an open question in my book.

In short, I think guys who catch 120 passes are not so easily dismissed and that the Pats would indeed miss a beat without him.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 25 April 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

And Willie McGinest doesn't like that decision.



http://espn.go.com/b...elkers-approach

Given how much Willie got paid as a Patriot throughout his career, McGinest was in a much different position than Welker is now.

And I don't think Wilie is right about Welker being expendable. Branch has obvious limitations (frequent injuries, often didn't get open), Gonzalez is a crap shoot given all the injuries and Lloyd should be fine in this system but that there was so little market for him should tell us something. Yes, Welker was fortunate to play with Tom Brady, but a lot of other guys who played with Tom didn't produce anything remotely close to what Welker has given them.

My assumption is that Welker and the Pats will find a way to meet somewhere in the middle. I just hope it happens early enough so that the team's off season preparation wont be adversely affected.

And will the Pats be more likely to draft a WR than they would have if Welker's situation was resolved?

I love Big Willie. I've heard some stories about him in the locker room and on the practice field, and he was really "that guy" who enforced the rules and laws with an iron fist. He slapped some players around and was the unquestionable leader for the Patriots. I could care less if he's right or wrong about Wes, I just like hearing his opinion.

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

I'm not so sure.

Tom will undoubtedly have a lot of weapons with or without Welker, but the SB reinforced to me that if any of Gronk, Hernandez and Welker are not at full strength, the Pats passing offense will look a lot different. I note that the Pats' offense was similarly compromised when they played the Jets in the playoffs in the 2010 season, as Hernandez was not a full speed. Different team, different circumstances, I know, but the fact remains that after Gronk and Welker, the Pats didn't have a lot of receiving options, and I'm not sure that has really changed other than replacing Welker with Lloyd if you assume, for the sake of discussion, that Welker is gone.

It's hard to dispute that an offense with Welker, Lloyd, Hernandez and Gronk on the field at any one time would be extremely hard to match up against. I don't see anyone else in their present stable who could give them enough of what Wes provides to be able to replicate that combined threat. None of Edelman, Branch, Ocho or Gonzalez has shown that he can give them what Welker does, and it's hard for me to imagine any of them coming close.

We also don't know if Lloyd can thrive in an offense when he is one of many threats as opposed to being the primary target. Christain Fauria had some pretty damning things to say about Lloyd as a teammate from their days in Washington. Maybe Josh is a Lloyd Whisperer but until we see Lloyd prosper in NE, it remains an open question in my book.

In short, I think guys who catch 120 passes are not so easily dismissed and that the Pats would indeed miss a beat without him.

Don't get me wrong I believe that they are better with him, but history has proven that this team will still win without having to replicate production from any one player. Look at Moss in 2010, there were a lot of people that thought this team was screwed after kicking him to the curb. He was "replaced" by Deion Branch and this team kept rolling along.

Having to play without Welker or Gronk in the playoffs or in the Super Bowl is a lot different than having to do that for an entire year. Adjustments are made over the course of the year to get the offense into a rhythm working under a certain scheme with the players available. Take an important piece away at the end of the year and of course the offense going to struggle. So what they did without Welker or Gronk or even Hernandez for that matter in one game after having them there consistently isn't the same as not having them there at all over the course of the entire year.

I understand Lloyd is an assumption at this point, but "on paper" he arguably gives them a presence that wasn't there last year and could make the whole outlook or scheme different. Welker may not even catch 100 this year. That doesn't mean that he's not important and it would be idiotic to think that they'd be better off without him, but I think this team could absorb the loss if it had too.

Edited by Eck'sSneakyCheese, 25 April 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[TheoShmeo]

I love Big Willie. I've heard some stories about him in the locker room and on the practice field, and he was really "that guy" who enforced the rules and laws with an iron fist. He slapped some players around and was the unquestionable leader for the Patriots. I could care less if he's right or wrong about Wes, I just like hearing his opinion.

Yup, I like hearing Willie talk about all things Patriots and am also a huge McGinest fan. Thoughts of him chasing Brunell around mercilessly in the 1996 AFC Champtionship Game never fail to bring a huge smile to my face. And I agree, he was a key force in that locker room.

But it's for that very reason that I do care if he's right or wrong about Wes. If he was some dipshit, I'd care a lot less about what he had to say.

[tims4wins]

It is unsettling that he's kind of flip-flopped from previous statements when he said he'd be happy to play for that amount of money. Maybe he just meant per year? Hopefully this is just a matter of the team finding out where they are financially after the draft and trying to get something done.

I don't think he is flip flopping. Let's face it, the comments about playing for the $9M were just to say the right thing to the public so he doesn't come off as looking like the bad guy. I doubt he really wants to play just 1 year at $9M, considering he blew out his knee 2 years ago and there are no guarantees in this league.

That said, I think the Pats are fully prepared to pay him the $9M this year, and then franchise him again next year and pay him the $11.2M or whatever it will be, and then let him walk.

Edit: and if that scenario plays out, he will have played for the Pats for 7 years and will have made ~$37M.

Edited by tims4wins, 25 April 2012 - 09:44 AM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I love Big Willie. I've heard some stories about him in the locker room and on the practice field, and he was really "that guy" who enforced the rules and laws with an iron fist. He slapped some players around and was the unquestionable leader for the Patriots. I could care less if he's right or wrong about Wes, I just like hearing his opinion.

His friends Ty Law and Lawyer Milloy didn't have too much of a problem getting their money while Willie was on the team. Lawyer got himself dealt away over salary.

WIllie was awesome, awesome, awesome, and I loved him, but I'm not sure this is anything more than an older player wagging his finger at a younger one when it's time to get paid.

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

I don't think he is flip flopping. Let's face it, the comments about playing for the $9M were just to say the right thing to the public so he doesn't come off as looking like the bad guy. I doubt he really wants to play just 1 year at $9M, considering he blew out his knee 2 years ago and there are no guarantees in this league.

That said, I think the Pats are fully prepared to pay him the $9M this year, and then franchise him again next year and pay him the $11.2M or whatever it will be, and then let him walk.

Edit: and if that scenario plays out, he will have played for the Pats for 7 years and will have made ~$37M.

I don't know, it's only been 3 weeks since the ESPN quote and he has a little more than 2 and a half months left to sign the tender on July 16th. If he was just saying the right thing to save face I would think that it would continue at least until mandatory camps were right around the corner in June. Again, I don't know for sure, but maybe things are getting ugly behind the scenes.

As far as next year goes, I can't see either side being happy with the tag again. Too much money to allocate to a slot receiver when there will be other needs and if Wes doesn't like being franchised this year he isn't going to be on board next year either.

[quint]

I don't think he is flip flopping. Let's face it, the comments about playing for the $9M were just to say the right thing to the public so he doesn't come off as looking like the bad guy. I doubt he really wants to play just 1 year at $9M, considering he blew out his knee 2 years ago and there are no guarantees in this league.

That said, I think the Pats are fully prepared to pay him the $9M this year, and then franchise him again next year and pay him the $11.2M or whatever it will be, and then let him walk.

Edit: and if that scenario plays out, he will have played for the Pats for 7 years and will have made ~$37M.

Yes, but you're discounting any scenario where he isn't franchised for next year. Sure the possibility exists that what you've laid out happens, but having the guaranteed twenty million (or whatever monetary amount he's looking for) settled prior to the 2012 season is probably the priority.

Whether that's spread out over the next two, or the next 3-4 years is pretty irrelevant.