2021 Draft: Tank for Trevor - Can NE do it?

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I think that Elway simply did not want to play for the Colts/in Baltimore.

But I am quite sure Archie Manning and Eli Manning were very specific in wanting to go to the Giants, which is how they ended up trading Rivers for Manning.
Anecdote alert: In 1999, I took a walking tour of the Garden District in New Orleans. The guide led us by Archie Manning's house, and mentioned that it will be incumbent for the good people of New Orleans to do everything in their power to get Eli to play for the Saints when he finishes college (he had recently committed to play for Ole Miss). At that time, the Saints were pathetic, led by two QB's named Billy Joe and awaiting the arrival of the highly touted Ricky Williams.

Back to the trade: I always thought the key reason was that neither Archie Manning nor Eli wanted Eli playing in the AFC, where he would potentially be facing his brother every season. As the Raiders had the #2 pick, that left the Cardinals (#3), Giants (#4), and Washington (#5) as the only viable trade opportunities. Highly doubt Eli would have welcomed playing the desert, and so the Giants became the most likely destination. The Saints were in 8-8 purgatory at the time and so were not even in the picture.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
We know that BB can be a bloodless mercenary. Is it that crazy to think that he could decide that the best approach to long-term success is to not win a ton of games this year?
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
We know that BB can be a bloodless mercenary. Is it that crazy to think that he could decide that the best approach to long-term success is to not win a ton of games this year?
It's impossible to know for sure, but just based on what we've seen and heard from him over the last 35 years, the better guess is that he values a winning and competitive culture over just about everything and wouldn't risk compromising it for one higher draft pick.

That being said...this team is bad. They might end up with 4 or less wins even without giving up at all.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
This team is bad...and kinda...not bad. Again:

- Lost at Seattle by one yard. One. Yard.

- Lost at KC in a game they were absolutely in until the 4th quarter, playing with Brian Hoyer, having not practiced, and having flown out to KC just a few hours before game time.

- Lost vs Den by one score when they hadn't practiced but twice in two weeks.

- Lost at division-leading Buffalo by three points, when they were driving for the win and Cam fumbled at the end.

I mean...that's four games they easily could have won.

So yeah, they're 2-5 and they're not good....but they're kinda sorta ok too?
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
This team is bad...and kinda...not bad. Again:

- Lost at Seattle by one yard. One. Yard.

- Lost at KC in a game they were absolutely in until the 4th quarter, playing with Brian Hoyer, having not practiced, and having flown out to KC just a few hours before game time.

- Lost vs Den by one score when they hadn't practiced but twice in two weeks.

- Lost at division-leading Buffalo by three points, when they were driving for the win and Cam fumbled at the end.

I mean...that's four games they easily could have won.

So yeah, they're 2-5 and they're not good....but they're kinda sorta ok too?
Sorry but that’s loser talk. Just like saying teams that win only close games aren’t that good. The margin of error in the NFL is small and it often comes down to a handful of plays, so many teams can play that game that they really aren’t “that bad”. Bottom line is the Pats are a 2-5 team which is a bad team. They have a few good to great positions (DBs, OL) and a great coaching staff but some downright awful positions (LB, WR, TE). OK teams don’t have such glaring weaknesses.
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,275
UK
Sorry but that’s loser talk. Just like saying teams that win only close games aren’t that good. The margin of error in the NFL is small and it often comes down to a handful of plays, so many teams can play that game that they really aren’t “that bad”. Bottom line is the Pats are a 2-5 team which is a bad team. They have a few good to great positions (DBs, OL) and a great coaching staff but some downright awful positions (LB, WR, TE). OK teams don’t have such glaring weaknesses.
Sure, but for the purposes of this discussion, there are at least 3-4 teams that are "That bad." I didn't read the post you were responding to as implying they could make the playoffs or anything, but that getting a really high pick is likely off the table because they'll hang around in enough games to win a couple more off turnover luck or whatever.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
EDIT: Yes. Lawrence is much better, despite the Clemson team led by his backup struggling for much of game against BC and losing last night.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,260
If they lose tonight, they can lose out and outtank the Jets for a pick. And it might be #1 if they go 2-14, depending on the Jags.

So yeah, if they lose tonight, just tank baby.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
If they lose tonight, they can lose out and outtank the Jets for a pick. And it might be #1 if they go 2-14, depending on the Jags.

So yeah, if they lose tonight, just tank baby.
I definitely want to see them lose tonight because losing out the rest of the way is possible. This team stinks.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,404
Even if they fall short of Tanking for Trevor, maybe the'll be able to Fold for Fields or Lose for Lance.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,619
CT
Question: after what we've seen from Lawrence's backup at Clemson the past two weeks, are we *sure* that Tanking for Trevor would really be a good idea anyway? Is he as good a prospect as, say, Burrow was last year?
Just to chime in here, this was a question a lot of people had of Tua. People genuinely wanted to discredit his college success because he was surrounded by elite receivers and running backs his whole career.

Just like with Lawrence you have to look to the traits as well as the production. All of the things that made Tua special in college were present on Sunday. Lawrence will be a special QB at the next level assuming Adam Gase doesn’t ruin him.
 
Just to chime in here, this was a question a lot of people had of Tua. People genuinely wanted to discredit his college success because he was surrounded by elite receivers and running backs his whole career.

Just like with Lawrence you have to look to the traits as well as the production. All of the things that made Tua special in college were present on Sunday. Lawrence will be a special QB at the next level assuming Adam Gase doesn’t ruin him.
Thank you for at least sort of making an argument instead of simply saying "Yes, Lawrence is a better prospect than Burrow was" and implying it was stupid to think otherwise. I'm not sure the comparison to Tua fully works, if only because Tua played in the SEC and Lawrence plays in the ACC - like Tua, Lawrence has elite talent around him, but unlike Tua, Lawrence faces a much lower standard of opposition week in and week out. (You could say the same thing about Fields at Ohio State, of course; it's not like the track record of Buckeye QBs in the NFL is anything to write home about.)

Anyway, I'm not denying that Lawrence is a great prospect, or that he has the physical traits and abilities that one needs to be an elite NFL quarterback. I'm just cautioning against the assumption that he will automatically become one. It seems to me that Burrow did everything you could possibly ask of a college QB against the strongest possible opposition in his last year at LSU; the main knock against him is that he only performed like that in a single year, whereas Lawrence's longer track record is counterbalanced by the level of most of his opponents. In any event, all of this is now moot as far as the Patriots are concerned; they're not going to finish below the Jets, and it was never realistic that they would.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Thank you for at least sort of making an argument instead of simply saying "Yes, Lawrence is a better prospect than Burrow was" and implying it was stupid to think otherwise. I'm not sure the comparison to Tua fully works, if only because Tua played in the SEC and Lawrence plays in the ACC - like Tua, Lawrence has elite talent around him, but unlike Tua, Lawrence faces a much lower standard of opposition week in and week out. (You could say the same thing about Fields at Ohio State, of course; it's not like the track record of Buckeye QBs in the NFL is anything to write home about.)

Anyway, I'm not denying that Lawrence is a great prospect, or that he has the physical traits and abilities that one needs to be an elite NFL quarterback. I'm just cautioning against the assumption that he will automatically become one. It seems to me that Burrow did everything you could possibly ask of a college QB against the strongest possible opposition in his last year at LSU; the main knock against him is that he only performed like that in a single year, whereas Lawrence's longer track record is counterbalanced by the level of most of his opponents. In any event, all of this is now moot as far as the Patriots are concerned; they're not going to finish below the Jets, and it was never realistic that they would.
Is there that big a difference between the SEC and the ACC? It's not like Lawrence played in C-USA or FCS or something.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,619
CT
Is there that big a difference between the SEC and the ACC? It's not like Lawrence played in C-USA or FCS or something.
I suppose in the grand scheme of things, there isn’t a huge disparity in talent, but Notre Dame has been up and down and Miami hasn’t been great recently. We’ve also seen Lawrence beat Alabama and lose to LSU in the national championship. So for him in particular, I think it’s an easier evaluation in terms of competition he has faced. He’s very good.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
Revisiting from earlier in the season:

11/19 vs. 0-7 Jets - WIN
11/22 vs. 1-6 Texans - LOSS
12/6 vs. 2-5 Chargers - WIN
1/3 vs. 0-7 Jets

"Unfortunately", they ended up winning against the Cardinals and Ravens and right now sit at #16 in the draft. Unlikely to make the playoffs, and the top 4 QBs should all be off the board.
 

Cousin Walter

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
168
Basement
If the Jets are a win over the Jags for first overall, should the Pats tank the week 17 game on purpose so Lawrence isn't in the division for the next 15 years?

Not that BB would not try to win.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,619
CT
No, the Jets will ruin Lawrence. Trust.
You would think that, but look at the teams that surrounded Andrew Luck early in his career. They were downright bad with really bad offensive lines, which in turn lead to his injuries and ultimate early retirement.

But he carried those teams to the playoffs consistently and an AFC Championship.

Easy to say the Jets might ruin Lawrence like they did with Darnold, but Darnold was always a bit of a projection that needed the right team and coaches around him to reach his potential. Lawrence is a system and is an elevator. The Jets will be at worst relevant with him at QB for a few years.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
You would think that, but look at the teams that surrounded Andrew Luck early in his career. They were downright bad with really bad offensive lines, which in turn lead to his injuries and ultimate early retirement.

But he carried those teams to the playoffs consistently and an AFC Championship Participation Trophy.

Easy to say the Jets might ruin Lawrence like they did with Darnold, but Darnold was always a bit of a projection that needed the right team and coaches around him to reach his potential. Lawrence is a system and is an elevator. The Jets will be at worst relevant with him at QB for a few years.
Fixed a typo for you.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
"Sure, the Jets might ruin Lawrence...OR maybe it will be a success story where they draft him onto their shitty team, he'll take hundreds of sacks over six years, and retire at age 29."
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,619
CT
"Sure, the Jets might ruin Lawrence...OR maybe it will be a success story where they draft him onto their shitty team, he'll take hundreds of sacks over six years, and retire at age 29."
Haha I suppose ruin is subjective in that instance, but I would call Luck’s career successful though obviously abbreviated. And I also don’t think that Lawrence will flame out and end up as a backup like it appears Darnold is trending towards.
Fixed a typo for you.
Right, that’s what I meant.
 

BunnzMcGinty

New Member
Jul 17, 2011
268
You would think that, but look at the teams that surrounded Andrew Luck early in his career. They were downright bad with really bad offensive lines, which in turn lead to his injuries and ultimate early retirement.

But he carried those teams to the playoffs consistently and an AFC Championship.

Easy to say the Jets might ruin Lawrence like they did with Darnold, but Darnold was always a bit of a projection that needed the right team and coaches around him to reach his potential. Lawrence is a system and is an elevator. The Jets will be at worst relevant with him at QB for a few years.
I definitely see your point, and Luck is an interesting comp. He was arguably a generational talent, drawing comparisons to Elway and Peyton Manning, and when he was healthy, he was good, but that’s the one of the problems of having a great QB surrounded by a shitty team. He took a beating and missed 26 games to injury over the 2015-2017 seasons, before finally retiring after 2018 in one of the saddest retirement statements I’ve ever read.

You’re probably right in that Lawrence will make the Jets at least relevant for a few years, especially with Becton covering his blind side, but to go back to the Luck comparison, he made the playoffs in 4 seasons in a division with Houston, Jacksonville and Tennessee , with a 4-4 record, the closest to the Super Bowl of course being the infamous 45-7 AFC championship. In a division with BB and a resurgent Buffalo and Miami, I don’t know that I trust that organization to build a team that can win around Lawrence.

edit: second paragraph was missing at first post.
 
Last edited:

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
So, what're we looking at here? Drafting 11th to 15th or so?

Does that put Zach Wilson (BYU) or Mac Jones (Alabama) in play? Where is Trey Lance (NDSU)? Or do we look at someone like Kyle Trask (UF)?

Anyone like Desmond Ridder (Cincy)?
Yeah, 11-15 looks about right.

It is also a spot, coupled with their mid round picks (they’ll have several thirds to play with), where they can realistically move up to grab a guy they love without trading an entire draft’s worth of picks or something. The HOU pick that MIA got in the Tunsil trade and the LAC jump out as possibilit, since obviously they won’t be taking a QB high in the draft. It is also reasonable to expect Philly to push their chips in on Hurts, who looks good and was just picked in the second round.

It is also hard to predict whether teams like the Giants, Falcons, Niners, and Lions will start over at QB, and while it looks likely that Carolina takes a QB who knows who they will prefer?

It’s tough to predict these things since you need a willing trade partner in four months - after more scouting and the initial wave of free agency - but I think identifying top ten teams who won’t take a QB with that pick is a good way to see the most likely opportunities for a trade up.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Albert Breer this morning:

(Yes, yes, who cares what Breer or any media type says about the Patriots unless they're kissing the team's ass)

The Patriots’ problems go well beyond the quarterback. So before we even touch Cam Newton … New England’s front seven was run over by the Dolphins’ young line on Sunday, to the tune of 250 yards rushing. The Patriots had two wideouts with multiple catches, and the tight end position, as a whole, had one catch for two yards. There’s no delicate way to put this: The reason for all that is New England’s roster is a mess. A few years of mortgaging contracts and whiffing on draft picks has put New England in a bizarre mix of young and old. The secondary is full of thirtysomethings (Stephon Gilmore, Devin McCourty, Jason McCourty and opt-out Patrick Chung), which leaves New England in a spot where it has to determine if it can fix its front fast enough to get any more real value out of that group of DBs. Ditto on offense, where two key linemen—guard Joe Thuney and center David Andrews—are scheduled to hit free agency, just as the team has to address perhaps the worst receiver room in the league and the worst tight end room in the league. And then there’s the fact that the team’s 2021 quarterback might not be on the roster. This problem, by the way, has been brewing for a while. The team’s long been bereft of any 25-and-under cornerstones (injury-prone left tackle Isaiah Wynn could be one, and tailback Damien Harris and safety Kyle Dugger have some promise as well), and now it’s being laid bare with attrition elsewhere on the roster. On the surface, it sure looks like it’ll take more than a single offseason to fix everything. Bill Belichick, by the way, turns 69 in April. I don’t think he wants to leave this sort of mess behind for whoever’s next. He has a lot of work to do.

There's a lot of truth in there, and one good draft or FA signing period isn't likely to address all of it
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
There's a very glass-half-empty point of view, and that Breer quote definitely is that. There's also a very glass-half-full point of view, and it goes something like this:

The offensive line is very good, and has some exciting young players. The running back position is very good, especially as Damien Harris looks like the absolute real deal, a playmaker and powerhouse. The secondary doesn't just have older players - they have a young, elite corner in JC Jackson, and other solid secondary pieces who are young (Dugger, Jones, Williams, Bryant). Even if all the veterans left, they have talent there. But I think the veterans won't all leave, and the secondary will be a strength again next year.

Linebackers were decimated after last season, with the departures of key players and the Covid decision taking out Hightower. Now even if we assume High isn't coming back, there's some hope with the linebackers, with a year under their belt and some more growth. Played in the proper roles, Bentley, Jennings, and Uche can really help. As for the DL...well...there's issues there. Offensively, Byrd and Meyers are fine, legit WRs, but they are each slotted too high on the depth chart. The team needs a stud #1, which would make the WR group MUCH better. And the TEs...we simply don't know. There's talent there, but it's so raw and this has been a lost season. QB...well...that's the primary issue.

So to fix this....

- Need a QB.
- Need a #1 type WR.
- Need a good DT, preferably two.
- Need one more LB.

And I think they can be very good again with that. The good news is that the young players will have another year of development, they will have a good draft position (for them anyway), and they'll have lots of cap space. The last three items can be solved relatively easily, I think. The QB issue might be harder, but there are options:

- Draft a QB.
- Sign Fitzpatrick (assuming he's let go by Miami).
- Maybe trade for Wentz (I wouldn't go that route) or Hurts if Philly figures that one of them has to go, and they can't afford (financially) to trade Wentz. I don't see either of these Philly options as remotely likely, but they're worth exploring.
- Maybe trade for JG, if SF likes Mullens. Or if they are committed to JG, trade for Mullens.
- Explore trading for Minschew from Jax. He's got ability and he's young. If they draft Lawrence (likely) then Minschew will probably be available.
- Explore trading for Mariota, who probably could be pried from the Raiders.

There are ways to upgrade the QB position, and if this year's team had a decent QB, they're likely at 9 wins right now instead of 6.

The reality is almost certainly somewhere between the glass-is-half-empty and the glass-is-half-full perspectives. It won't be as hard as some think to get this team back to the playoffs, but it won't be as easy as others think.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
I think he overstates his case (Winovich, Uche, Onwenu, JC Jackson and Jonathan Jones are not mentioned as players that can be key parts of the next Pats), but that’s to be expected since his thesis is ‘they are fucked.’

I would also be very surprised if they lose BOTH Thuney and Andrews. Andrews in particular would be a surprising departure.You don’t need five good to great players on your OL, so letting Thuney walk - or dumping Mason - is something they can live with if they can snag a decent developmental player. You generally can’t have good players everywhere, nor do you need that to contend.

I do agree that they’re probably two more good off seasons way from being back with the big dogs (read: not a fringe playoff team). There is really no defensible scenario where they can ignore throwing additional, significant assets at WR and the front seven in this offseason. Obviously figuring out the QB position is priority number one, but that could be through the draft or trade. Maybe Atlanta or Detroit moves on from Ryan or Stafford? Maybe they get a shot at Wilson or Lance?

I think tossing a sizable contract at Robinson or Godwin makes sense unless they’re able to get a QB via trade in early a March and then count on drafting a receiver like Waddle. Point is, they can’t afford to wait it out at all of these positions or they’re gonna run a high risk of losing out on a critical upgrade at receiver or QB.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The offensive line is very good, and has some exciting young players. The running back position is very good, especially as Damien Harris looks like the absolute real deal, a playmaker and powerhouse. The secondary doesn't just have older players - they have a young, elite corner in JC Jackson, and other solid secondary pieces who are young (Dugger, Jones, Williams, Bryant). Even if all the veterans left, they have talent there. But I think the veterans won't all leave, and the secondary will be a strength again next year.
The issue to me is that they have to spend resources just to tread water at these positions for 2021. Sure, the OL is great this year, but Thuney, Andrews, and Eluemunor (three of your top six OL in snaps) are free agents. The RBs are a fine unit, but White and Burkhead are both free agents; those are your two leading receiving backs. The DBs are great, but Gilmore and McCourty are both up there and both free agents after 2021. Chung is even older. Jackson is a RFA; JMac is a free agent. Williams was just a healthy scratch yesterday and looks like a bust (which pains me to say, because I liked him a lot coming out, but he's a zero so far).

Pass-catchers and front seven, I think we can agree, are an absolute mess that require resources (and also have their own FA / age issues even aside from being terrible), and they only have Stidham under contract for a quarterback. I just see too many holes to address in one offseason. They'll either re-sign key guys and shore up the OL / secondary, leaving little to spend on the areas of weakness this year, or they'll throw resources trying to fix their broken areas and get weaker at what had been their strengths. I just see too many problems to fix in one offseason.
 

SoxVindaloo

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 20, 2003
979
Titletown of the Aughts
The issue to me is that they have to spend resources just to tread water at these positions for 2021. Sure, the OL is great this year, but Thuney, Andrews, and Eluemunor (three of your top six OL in snaps) are free agents. The RBs are a fine unit, but White and Burkhead are both free agents; those are your two leading receiving backs. The DBs are great, but Gilmore and McCourty are both up there and both free agents after 2021. Chung is even older. Jackson is a RFA; JMac is a free agent. Williams was just a healthy scratch yesterday and looks like a bust (which pains me to say, because I liked him a lot coming out, but he's a zero so far).

Pass-catchers and front seven, I think we can agree, are an absolute mess that require resources (and also have their own FA / age issues even aside from being terrible), and they only have Stidham under contract for a quarterback. I just see too many holes to address in one offseason. They'll either re-sign key guys and shore up the OL / secondary, leaving little to spend on the areas of weakness this year, or they'll throw resources trying to fix their broken areas and get weaker at what had been their strengths. I just see too many problems to fix in one offseason.
This makes a ton of sense to me. I wonder if its better to be a lopsided/deficient team in a different way than 2nd half of 19, all of 20, or to retain your strengths and do little to alter your weaknesses. As a fan some offensive skill players might make another mediocre season more exciting. A 38-35 loss sounds pretty good right now.
Short of a 2010 level draft haul and Free Agency Brilliance we will need multiple offseasons and drafts to get this corrected.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,314
Breer is mainly right; the roster is a mess without a lot of young talent. And it's that lack of baseline talent is why I don't see them paying top-of-market deals for one or two free agents. They're much better off spreading that money around and bringing in a bigger pool of quality talent than thinking Robinson or (especially) Juju is going to make any sort of difference in 2021. It'd be as shortsighted as Detroit doling out franchise tag money to Trey Flowers (how do you think they feel about that contract these days?). NE needs a true influx, not a couple of big names.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
Breer is mainly right; the roster is a mess without a lot of young talent. And it's that lack of baseline talent is why I don't see them paying top-of-market deals for one or two free agents. They're much better off spreading that money around and bringing in a bigger pool of quality talent than thinking Robinson or (especially) Juju is going to make any sort of difference in 2021. It'd be as shortsighted as Detroit doling out franchise tag money to Trey Flowers (how do you think they feel about that contract these days?). NE needs a true influx, not a couple of big names.
I generally subscribe to this, but what WR are you spreading money around to in lieu of pursuing a Godwon or Robinson? Byrd and Meyers are solid players getting way too many snaps/primary looks for their talent level, so another couple of guys like that won’t change anything. They’ll need to pony up real dollars to bring in productive receiving. Otherwise you’re rolling the dice on fliers (high failure rate) or hoping a rookie receiver or two contributes big time. I think it’s safe to consider Harry a sunk cost/playing for a roster spot next camp, so I see no reason to discuss him.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,314
I generally subscribe to this, but what WR are you spreading money around to in lieu of pursuing a Godwon or Robinson? Byrd and Meyers are solid players getting way too many snaps/primary looks for their talent level, so another couple of guys like that won’t change anything. They’ll need to pony up real dollars to bring in productive receiving. Otherwise you’re rolling the dice on fliers (high failure rate) or hoping a rookie receiver or two contributes big time. I think it’s safe to consider Harry a sunk cost/playing for a roster spot next camp, so I see no reason to discuss him.
There's a very strong chance Buffalo will move on from John Brown this offseason. He's exactly the type of veteran NE has prioritized in the past and he'll probably be around $5million vs. these $20million types. Marvin Jones at 31 is still pretty effective and will certainly be cheaper than the younger, flashier alternatives. There's also going to be players who will be VERY available on the trade market as teams scramble to get cap compliant. I'd much rather have a couple of really solid #2 type of options than a very expensive #1 a defense can just game plan out of the offense anyhow.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
Fair enough, I definitely agree that they need to bring in multiple, viable receiving options, not one game changing guy (and it isn’t like a truly elite player like Hopkins or Julio are available anyways).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Fair enough, I definitely agree that they need to bring in multiple, viable receiving options, not one game changing guy (and it isn’t like a truly elite player like Hopkins or Julio are available anyways).
It's possible Juju Smith-Schuster is out there Or Corey Davis. As said elsewhere, getting a legit #1 pushes the others down to where they belong. Someone like that and a player like Keelan Cole or Rashard Higgins and maybe there's some hope--it pushes Meyers and Harry down into slots more suited for them.

There's not many TEs out there--maybe they like Gerald Everett or Tyler Eifert, along with the 2 rookies.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
There's not many TEs out there--maybe they like Gerald Everett or Tyler Eifert, along with the 2 rookies.
Hunter Henry will be out there.

The question, though, is what wide receiver or tight end is going to a team perceived to be on the decline that doesn't even know who its quarterback will be?

I think I said somewhere that the Patriots years of getting guys to take a little less to get a chance at a ring are, at least for the length of contracts FA2B are going to get, over. They'll have to pay market value now, and hope a better offer doesn't come from a team with its ducks in a row offensively
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
Hunter Henry will be out there.

The question, though, is what wide receiver or tight end is going to a team perceived to be on the decline that doesn't even know who its quarterback will be?

I think I said somewhere that the Patriots years of getting guys to take a little less to get a chance at a ring are, at least for the length of contracts FA2B are going to get, over. They'll have to pay market value now, and hope a better offer doesn't come from a team with its ducks in a row offensively
I don’t think guys taking less to chase a ring with the Pats was as prevalent as one may think anyways. Troy Brown? I think Hightower took less to stay but that was to avoid the Jets, and he still got paid a big contract. McCourty was paid market value at the time of his 2015 deal, too.

The ‘ring chasers’ they’ve acquired haven’t been difference makers (Seau, Fred Taylor) and - as guys at the end of their careers - had limited markets as it was. I think it’s a real phenomenon, but not one that has been significant to the Pats’ success. Hell, they’ve lost tons of incumbent players to bigger money, and not acquired guys (Humphries, for ex) because they were offered more money.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
The issue to me is that they have to spend resources just to tread water at these positions for 2021. Sure, the OL is great this year, but Thuney, Andrews, and Eluemunor (three of your top six OL in snaps) are free agents. The RBs are a fine unit, but White and Burkhead are both free agents; those are your two leading receiving backs. The DBs are great, but Gilmore and McCourty are both up there and both free agents after 2021. Chung is even older. Jackson is a RFA; JMac is a free agent. Williams was just a healthy scratch yesterday and looks like a bust (which pains me to say, because I liked him a lot coming out, but he's a zero so far).

Pass-catchers and front seven, I think we can agree, are an absolute mess that require resources (and also have their own FA / age issues even aside from being terrible), and they only have Stidham under contract for a quarterback. I just see too many holes to address in one offseason. They'll either re-sign key guys and shore up the OL / secondary, leaving little to spend on the areas of weakness this year, or they'll throw resources trying to fix their broken areas and get weaker at what had been their strengths. I just see too many problems to fix in one offseason.
Losing JMac will be a good thing. He's been objectively HORRENDOUS this season, allowing opposing QBs a ridiculous 134.8 passer rating when throwing at him. Williams - way too early to call him a bust. Gilmore and McCourty are free agents after 2021, but not before 2021. If they keep them both, they're still quality players. If they trade them, they can get some young players, or other players to fill holes, or draft picks to restock. They'll have to pay Jackson, which they should. He's elite.

RBs are the last position group I'd worry about. Harris is a stud. Michel is obviously more than a serviceable backup, and apparently isn't bad on special teams either. JJ Taylor might or might not be a decent replacement for White, but we know that BB always finds useful players at RB.

The OL...I agree with you that there are possible losses, but there's a lot of quality there, and they won't lose ALL those guys.

The DL and linebackers are an issue, but there's some decent players there. Pass-catchers are an issue too, but honestly, they add one really good WR and the other guys all get much better. So think of it this way. Byrd is a useful #2 (with a good QB) but a bad #1. Meyers is a useful #3 but a not-so-good #2. You add a true #1 WR and you improve all three WR positions in one shot as Byrd and Meyers get bumped down a slot. Lots of WRs available this offseason. Same with TE. One guy I'd love to see them snag is Arnold from Arizona. He wouldn't cost too much, and his stats aren't lights out, but every time I see the guy, he's making plays. UFA after this season.

So it's possible to upgrade rather significantly with just a few key moves. The QB spot is the issue, though as I pointed out, there could be legit options there too.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
I don’t think guys taking less to chase a ring with the Pats was as prevalent as one may think anyways. Troy Brown? I think Hightower took less to stay but that was to avoid the Jets, and he still got paid a big contract. McCourty was paid market value at the time of his 2015 deal, too.
Then, to rephrase ... what is the selling point if you're this version of the Patriots?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Then, to rephrase ... what is the selling point if you're this version of the Patriots?
A chance to play under the greatest coach of all time. A franchise that is considered to be the gold standard in the league, with an owner that takes care of its players. Probably a starting role. And money.

It's not the same as having all that PLUS playing with the GOAT QB and almost a guaranteed trip to the AFCCG, but it's not nothing either.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Then, to rephrase ... what is the selling point if you're this version of the Patriots?
Money. Free agents sign with teams that aren't good all the time.

And you present them with clear plan on draft and other FA targets. Same thing other sub-.500 teams do.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Money. Free agents sign with teams that aren't good all the time.

And you present them with clear plan on draft and other FA targets. Same thing other sub-.500 teams do.
Exactly, which was my point. Money and giving them an idea how the rebuild is going to look are 2 things this Patriots leadership has never had to focus on to any great respect.

They can't rely on their rep anymore