I am now a fan, and as always, fuck Jeff Pash forever.She also had the unenviable task of peppering Jeff Pash with emails over the NFL refusing to publicly correct incorrect information bouncing around about Deflategate.
https://wellsreportcontext.com/league-failure-to-correct-misinformation/
Probably goes in the GM search thread. But hasn’t the team already said flat out that Jonathan won’t be involved in football decisions?Not sure where this goes, but he mentions Glaser.....
Ive been leery of JKraft only because of my own son-of-billionaire biases. Ultimately I would defer to anyone with actual insight.
But Ben V. has a bigger hair across his ass for JK than he did for BB. What reporter covers a new coach's press conference with this sort of raging hostility? Did someone put him up to it?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/01/17/sports/jonathan-kraft-robert-kraft-patriots-jerod-mayo/
Makes sense. (as much as it can, anyway). Job is reporter. Attitude is columnist.Probably goes in the GM search thread. But hasn’t the team already said flat out that Jonathan won’t be involved in football decisions?
I’ve said this before but Volin 1) Doesn’t work very hard – Howe has noted in the past that he reported on camp from his sofa, and 2) Has zero sources inside the building. Literally the last scoop he had was Revis getting cut by TB and coming to the Pats, which was probably due to his Florida connections more than anything.
In this case, I suspect that he was hoping the latter would change with Belichick gone—after all, he wrote about 4,891 articles on Bill getting canned for the last two months—only to discover Stacey James still isn’t returning his texts. So now he’s “using his platform” to go scorched earth on the team. I’m sure that will work out great.
Not exactly insight, but I know two people who've interacted with JK. One is a longtime TV camerman, the other a former Bain Capital guy. Both used the same word to describe him: dipshit.Ive been leery of JKraft only because of my own son-of-billionaire biases. Ultimately I would defer to anyone with actual insight.
For those who think in these unassuming terms, is this similar to the Ali/Jennifer Garner role in Draft Day?Good chance she may handle the old Andy Wasynczuk role of contracts/salary cap. Has an MBA/JD from Washington University.
Apparently Jeremy Fowler stated that ‘The Patriots essentially know he isn’t coming back’ in this article, which is paywalled so I can’t confirm apart from all the people aggregating it. If true, it would suggest they don’t plan to franchise Onwenu.Lots of reports out there that Onwenu will not be returning to the Pats (his choice). I wonder if he ends up where Bill does.
It takes two to tango unless they play to use the tag on him.Thought they had epic amounts of cap space, why wouldn’t they bring Onwenu back?
The article basically says that some teams view Onwenu as the top free agent lineman and will have many bidders. I interpret the author’s speculation around him not coming back as more around cost vs relationship with team.Apparently Jeremy Fowler stated that ‘The Patriots essentially know he isn’t coming back’ in this article, which is paywalled so I can’t confirm apart from all the people aggregating it. If true, it would suggest they don’t plan to franchise Onwenu.
Mike Reiss says the Pats and Onwenu are playing the waiting game and so nothing is definitive yet.Mike Onwenu: Many teams view Onwenu as the top offensive lineman in free agency because of his physicality, quickness and ability to play guard or tackle. The Patriots essentially know Onwenu isn't coming back, and he will have high bidders. -- Fowler
Unless they settle for one of the lesser QB prospects, I don't see how they could do that. It seems like most of the tackles worth taking will be gone by somewhere around pick 40? You could probably do QB at 3, maybe grab a tackle in the early 2nd, and then grab a bunch of the lesser WR available and hope 1 pans out. But I don't see how you get two tackles, two WR, and a QB unless you trade back out of 3 for a haul, but that means gambling on the QB. Of course that's a fine strategy if they don't see a QB they really like available at 3.Full rebuild. Grab a QB, two tackles, and two WRs in the draft. And hold on to your butts.
If they’re losing both Ts I’d prefer the trade down approach. Maybe in stages to get a couple of draft hauls in order to pick up McCarthy in the 20s and enough picks to add Ts and WRs.Unless they settle for one of the lesser QB prospects, I don't see how they could do that. It seems like most of the tackles worth taking will be gone by somewhere around pick 40? You could probably do QB at 3, maybe grab a tackle in the early 2nd, and then grab a bunch of the lesser WR available and hope 1 pans out. But I don't see how you get two tackles, two WR, and a QB unless you trade back out of 3 for a haul, but that means gambling on the QB. Of course that's a fine strategy if they don't see a QB they really like available at 3.
I think that there are enough good tackles in this draft to get someone in round 3 that's a day 1 starter. Pick up someone else via FA if Mike prices himself out.If they’re losing both Ts I’d prefer the trade down approach. Maybe in stages to get a couple of draft hauls in order to pick up McCarthy in the 20s and enough picks to add Ts and WRs.
It’s a really deep group of tackles and WR this year. A good tackle at the top of the 2nd and a decent WR atop the 3rd is definitely possible. Obviously you don’t want to be in a position to “have” to hit a specific position at each pick but there will be quality players at both positions (most likely)Unless they settle for one of the lesser QB prospects, I don't see how they could do that. It seems like most of the tackles worth taking will be gone by somewhere around pick 40? You could probably do QB at 3, maybe grab a tackle in the early 2nd, and then grab a bunch of the lesser WR available and hope 1 pans out. But I don't see how you get two tackles, two WR, and a QB unless you trade back out of 3 for a haul, but that means gambling on the QB. Of course that's a fine strategy if they don't see a QB they really like available at 3.
But I was responding to somebody that said we needed to get a QB, two OT and two WR and I don't see how they can do that without one or two trade backs and then holding your ass and hoping that the QB you hoped for near the end of the 1st doesnt get snapped up.It’s a really deep group of tackles and WR this year. A good tackle at the top of the 2nd and a decent WR atop the 3rd is definitely possible. Obviously you don’t want to be in a position to “have” to hit a specific position at each pick but there will be quality players at both positions (most likely)
Take a QB at 3, tackle in rounds 2 and 4, WR in rounds 3 and 5 etcBut I was responding to somebody that said we needed to get a QB, two OT and two WR and I don't see how they can do that without one or two trade backs and then holding your ass and hoping that the QB you hoped for near the end of the 1st doesnt get snapped up.
Because a longer term deal gives more security and more guaranteed money. You get franchised before ever signing your big FA deal and get hurt, then that's gonna suck.I agree @Morgan's Magic Snowplow - franchise Onwenu if you have to this year. Not ideal, but it can get you through a season. And I don't understand why so many players hate the franchise tag. It's guaranteed money at the top of the pay scale at your position. Yes, for just one year, but still...it's a lot of money and usually represents an enormous pay raise.
I agree @Morgan's Magic Snowplow - franchise Onwenu if you have to this year. Not ideal, but it can get you through a season. And I don't understand why so many players hate the franchise tag. It's guaranteed money at the top of the pay scale at your position. Yes, for just one year, but still...it's a lot of money and usually represents an enormous pay raise.
First, we don't know whether he doesn't want to be here. Bedard claims that is the case; Mike Reiss claims the opposite.I wouldn't bother tagging him if he's made it known he doesn't want to be here. That won't help culture.
Agree, just saying IF it is the case.First, we don't know whether he doesn't want to be here. Bedard claims that is the case; Mike Reiss claims the opposite.
As for the tag itself, the reason players don't like it is that it caps their guaranteed money; Onwenu could probably get more guaranteed money on the free agent market, spread out over multiple years. At the same point, the Patriots are certainly well within their rights to use their leverage here. Tag and trade is always a possibility, and is often better than letting a player walk for a theoretical compensation pick in a future draft.
Maybe my assumptions are wrong, and I'm sure there are exceptions that could be cited, but I've always thought a round 4 OT is typically slotted in as a G in the NFL.Take a QB at 3, tackle in rounds 2 and 4, WR in rounds 3 and 5 etc
can you get two opening day starters at T and WR? No probably not. But one decent prospect with starting potential and a developmental guy or two? Seems feasible albeit unlikely that they’d hit just those 3 positions and ignore the other holes on the roster
Definitely need to draft 2-3 tackles, barring something unexpected with veterans as they have nothing there
It's supposed a deep tackle draft so that could slide back.Maybe my assumptions are wrong, and I'm sure there are exceptions that could be cited, but I've always thought a round 4 OT is typically slotted in as a G in the NFL.
It might. But you may get a bigger overall contract with less guaranteed money as a FA, as opposed to a massive one year deal via the franchise tag.Because a longer term deal gives more security and more guaranteed money. You get franchised before ever signing your big FA deal and get hurt, then that's gonna suck.
The one thing we do know is that if Onwenu is allowed to leave, Bedard will claim how right he was the whole way. In a market chock full of insufferable and thin-skinned writers, Bedard takes the cake.First, we don't know whether he doesn't want to be here. Bedard claims that is the case; Mike Reiss claims the opposite.
It's also one season, so it's not like you are tying up long-term dollars. By then, maybe Sow or Mafi or another guy they get this year steps up. I also think that ending the dysfunction on the offensive side of the ball--which includes the OL--is as important than talent acquisition.It's a risk for sure. But it's not like the guys getting franchised are getting ripped off - they're suddenly making top dollar for their position.
I would 100% bet that the guaranteed money is going to be more on the longer deal because that's the entire point. I can't see a player saying "Nah, I don't want $18.2M guaranteed for 1 year, I want $18M guaranteed for 3,"It might. But you may get a bigger overall contract with less guaranteed money as a FA, as opposed to a massive one year deal via the franchise tag.
Like if he gets tagged it might be something like $18.2 million guaranteed for one year, but as a FA, he might get offered a 3-year deal worth $45 million, but it's possible that less than the $18.2 million is guaranteed. Or even if a little more is guaranteed, the team has control over him for 3 years, as opposed to the player getting a huge one year guaranteed payday and then he becomes a free agent, whereupon he could get another huge payday.
It's a risk for sure. But it's not like the guys getting franchised are getting ripped off - they're suddenly making top dollar for their position.
As far as WR goes, there’s a lot that needs to shake out obviously with the veterans and whether or not the new GM is willing to eat dead cap to get rid of Parker or less likely JJSS. But the presence of a total flop like Thornton or a non entity like Boutte shouldn’t preclude them from taking a developmental guy. That’s kind of like saying the Pats shouldn’t have drafted Douglas (or tried to take someone higher) because they had Tre Nixon on the roster. I guess if Groh/Wolfe are the guys and they don’t want to give up on their previous acquisitions, maybe they think they’re in a better spot than it appears at WR. But once you get into the later rounds, you need to just find good players regardless of positionI think you can definitely get a good tackle in the 2nd... after that I am dubious.
I think you can definitely get WR talent through the early 3rd.
After that it's mostly punts. As an example... I don't particularly want them to draft any later round WRs this year. You have Douglas, you have Boutte, you'll likely have Juju, and Parker, plus Thornton will still be competing for a spot. If you're drafting a WR in the 1st three rounds, and probably at least making some effort to re-sign Bourne or add a FA WR..... that's too crowded a room for a 5th, 6th, 7th rounder to be a good use of a pick likely, you already have your developmental guys, your vets and your impact rookie (you hope).
I would kind of expect the 1st three rounds to be some combination of QB/WR/T, a chance of another T in the 4th if someone falls, but the mid-late rounds I'd be expecting the value to be on defense, RB, TE or maybe interior line if they think they need more depth.
I mean... if Boutte is a non-entity, so are all the late rounders in this draft. Sure you COULD roll the dice and have 3,4 guys compete for the last spot in the WR room, but it's probably not a good use of a pick given the huge number of needs on this team. People are treating it like "we need WRs so draft a ton", but... we don't need more long-term developmental guys, or #3 WRs, we have several, we also have several #3 types, and we might sign a WR. A guy taken late rounds at WR would face a huge uphill battle to make the roster, where we have a number of positions where we don't have any depth or developmental players, and a guy would easily make and improve the roster.As far as WR goes, there’s a lot that needs to shake out obviously with the veterans and whether or not the new GM is willing to eat dead cap to get rid of Parker or less likely JJSS. But the presence of a total flop like Thornton or a non entity like Boutte shouldn’t preclude them from taking a developmental guy. That’s kind of like saying the Pats shouldn’t have drafted Douglas (or tried to take someone higher) because they had Tre Nixon on the roster. I guess if Groh/Wolfe are the guys and they don’t want to give up on their previous acquisitions, maybe they think they’re in a better spot than it appears at WR. But once you get into the later rounds, you need to just find good players regardless of position
tackle they have almost literally nothing on the roster and while I expect them to overpay for bad veteran options (simply due to needing to fill a need and no actual supply of talent), they badly need a developmental guy or three on the bottom of the roster or practice squad. You can never have too many linemen in camp and other than Strange, Andrews and Sow, I don’t think any of these guys have proven to be worth keeping. Maybe Mafi.
Regardless, there’s so much to do with respect to veterans that any real position projections other than QB are purely speculative but my overarching point was that it wouldn’t be crazy to have a rookie QB, two rookie tackles and 2 rookie WR on the 53 man roster next year. I would only expect (hope? Dream?) of two of those guys actually being useful starters simply because most picks fail.
makes an interesting argument though since tackle is a higher pay scale. Do the Pats try to pay Onwenu as a tackle or guard? Does he see himself as a tackle or guard? Nobody is going to pay him 18M to play guard, maybe half that. But if teams are convinced he can/will play tackle long term, he could definitely get 15M AAV+ given the terrible market.First, we don't know whether he doesn't want to be here. Bedard claims that is the case; Mike Reiss claims the opposite.
As for the tag itself, the reason players don't like it is that it caps their guaranteed money; Onwenu could probably get more guaranteed money on the free agent market, spread out over multiple years. At the same point, the Patriots are certainly well within their rights to use their leverage here. Tag and trade is always a possibility, and is often better than letting a player walk for a theoretical compensation pick in a future draft.
In 10 years, Evans has only played less than 15 games once. In that season, he played 13 games. Evans is a get for anyone if Tampa doesn’t keep him.Which leaves oft-injured Evans who is on the wrong side of 30
Evans takes great care of himself. He's stayed light and "pliable". I think TB12 had something to do with that. For 2-3 years, I think he'd be a great get. Buffalo makes sense. He could have a crazy few years in KC.In 10 years, Evans has only played less than 15 games once. In that season, he played 13 games. Evans is a get for anyone if Tampa doesn’t keep him.
you could make that “Boutte” argument for almost any position. Why draft a RB? They have Harris. Why draft a safety? They have Bledsoe. Why draft a DL they have Pharms. Why draft a developmental tackle, they have Lowe. They have Bolden and Austin at CB.I mean... if Boutte is a non-entity, so are all the late rounders in this draft. Sure you COULD roll the dice and have 3,4 guys compete for the last spot in the WR room, but it's probably not a good use of a pick given the huge number of needs on this team. People are treating it like "we need WRs so draft a ton", but... we don't need more long-term developmental guys, or #3 WRs, we have several, we also have several #3 types, and we might sign a WR. A guy taken late rounds at WR would face a huge uphill battle to make the roster, where we have a number of positions where we don't have any depth or developmental players, and a guy would easily make and improve the roster.
Williams is a mediocre tackle who will get paid well because he’s durable and consistent. Low ceiling, high floor. He’s never particularly great but never really worse than below average which for a starting tackle these days is worth a lot of money. He’s going to get paid B+ money for C level performance. Might be worth it just because you know what you’re getting and the alternatives are all very risky (Becton, Smith) or pretty bad (Nijman, Fant, Wynn)With a new QB they need to nail the supporting cast around him.
Here is PFF’s FA guide:
https://www.pff.com/nfl/free-agency
On the WR topic: They expect both Tee Higgins and Michael Pittman to be franchise tagged. Which leaves oft-injured Evans who is on the wrong side of 30 and the enigmas in Marquise Brown, Calvin Ridley and Darnell Mooney.
At this point unless BB scoops him up in Atlanta or wherever might as well re-sign Bourne and draft a WR in Rd 3 or later. Not great but the O-line is more crucial.
In terms of tackle the FA class is even more barren. PFF suggests they will franchise Dugger. But Onwenu makes much more sense. Doubt they gamble on old Tyron Smith who probably won’t want to come to a rebuild anyway. But maybe a Jonah Williams helps shore up the line and you get one of the top 5 tackles in the 2nd round?