American NFL Football (107 Viewers)
- Thread starter Torkel
- Start date
What exactly would they know? Do they think his best years are behind him? The guy had 118 catches last year. How do you replace that? With two TE's that cannot stay healthy? They have Lloyd and...............................
Exactly.
And if you are facing Denver, how exactly do you cover Thomas, Decker, and Welker?
Apparently, sources close to Brady state that he is "disgusted" and this was "disrespectful".
Exactly.
And if you are facing Denver, how exactly do you cover Thomas, Decker, and Welker?
Apparently, sources close to Brady state that he is "disgusted" and this was "disrespectful".
welker routes have hard hits written all over them, and hes no TE im sure those have taken their toll, i like welker and would have loved for my bears to get him i just dont see it as a blunder yet since he too has many question marks be it physical or dropped balls in big games. And if indeed brady is voicing his discontent which i doubt, as long as belichick is making the moves he has no right/ground to question him.
- - - Updated - - -
ya thats been unofficial for some time now, great pickup
Welker has missed three games total in during his six years with the Patriots. And to be honest, Belichick has not won a Super Bowl in nearly a decade now. Brady wouldn't be the only one around these parts who have been questioning him lately.
For 2 years and 12 million dollars, this was a blunder, and not only is the Patriots offense weaker, but they allowed him to go to their biggest rival in the AFC.
This just sounds like the Patriots didn't want him, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why they wouldn't want to keep Brady's favorite target for the past 6 seasons.
Yes, it is Difficult to stay on top of the NFL, but I will argue that it is just as difficult, if not more so, to do it in the NBA for 2 reasons.
The NBA Salary Cap is a much stricter Cap than the NFL. Whereas you can go over the cap in the NBA to keep your own players, all of the contracts are guaranteed, so if you cut the player, the contract, and its salary cap and luxury tax implications are still affecting the team, with the added handicap of losing that player. In the NFL, unless there is guaranteed money in the contract, there is a negligible loss.
#2) The draft. There is far less margin for error in the NBA with their draft than there is in the NFL, in my opinion.
In regards to the roster management, most of the really good teams in the NBA will play 75-80% of their roster on a regular basis, whereas on a 53 man roster, your core players on offense and defense total maybe 65% at most, depending on how many multiple sets and positional rotations a squad will play.
- - - Updated - - -
One more thing in regards to the NBA vs the NFL.
Unlike the NFL, you are not allowed to restructure your contract in the NBA.
they made some yesterday too - Bennet and Bushrod 
good business for the Bears, avoiding to overpay for two very good players in positions of need - I still don't understand why some are questioning the Bushrod move, considering he is a pro-bowl LT on about 7 mil per pop? Usually one doesn't get to sniff these for less than 10 mil, give or take.
good business for the Bears, avoiding to overpay for two very good players in positions of need - I still don't understand why some are questioning the Bushrod move, considering he is a pro-bowl LT on about 7 mil per pop? Usually one doesn't get to sniff these for less than 10 mil, give or take.
they made some yesterday too - Bennet and Bushrod
good business for the Bears, avoiding to overpay for two very good players in positions of need - I still don't understand why some are questioning the Bushrod move, considering he is a pro-bowl LT on about 7 mil per pop? Usually one doesn't get to sniff these for less than 10 mil, give or take.
good business for the Bears, avoiding to overpay for two very good players in positions of need - I still don't understand why some are questioning the Bushrod move, considering he is a pro-bowl LT on about 7 mil per pop? Usually one doesn't get to sniff these for less than 10 mil, give or take.
Saints lose Nicks and Bushrod in back to back years.
That has to hurt
they made some yesterday too - Bennet and Bushrod
good business for the Bears, avoiding to overpay for two very good players in positions of need - I still don't understand why some are questioning the Bushrod move, considering he is a pro-bowl LT on about 7 mil per pop? Usually one doesn't get to sniff these for less than 10 mil, give or take.
good business for the Bears, avoiding to overpay for two very good players in positions of need - I still don't understand why some are questioning the Bushrod move, considering he is a pro-bowl LT on about 7 mil per pop? Usually one doesn't get to sniff these for less than 10 mil, give or take.
Bro, what's your take on the Welker situation?
- - - Updated - - -
spoken like a true NBA fan i have to admit myself that i am partial to football so i would see it as the harder of the 2 sports to play and manage
i have to admit myself that i am partial to football so i would see it as the harder of the 2 sports to play and manage
- - - Updated - - -
Kerry Rhodes just got cut by Arizona.
Get him get him get him get him get him
he isn't perfect but there also isn't a living thing in this world I'd trust over BB to make the right decisions. And no need to go all of sports, most successful in the NFL is plenty enough
And you are right, it's not the whole story there - NE is pretty well stocked roster-wise, while entering FA-cy with 25+ mil in cap room. Point is, they could have matched Bronco's offer to Welker(he gave them a chance, reportedly), which was surprisingly affordable anyway, but they didn't.
It's true that they may have been some ego-play there and more importantly, as you mentioned above, Welker has been taking big hits for years now and there is no way this won't start showing anytime soon. It's also true that he's slowed down over the past season or two especially noticeable towards the 4th quarter of a game or end of the season.
But I think the main reason for valuing Welker so little when it cam to his role for the Pats was hidden elsewhere - BB finally realized that those stats Welker is so famous for (number of catches, throws at him, etc, etc) mean also that the offense was becoming too predictable and easy to solve/stop by the top Ds in the league. The Welker-Brady connection worked well vs poor teams but when it came to doing it in crunch time in the POffs, it often stuttered (Ravens, Giants, Jets, 49ers last reg season game etc). Why? Because Welker was Brady's security blanket and what does a man do when he is facing a tough D i.e. when he needs a sure connection in crunch time? He naturally goes to his sure thing i.e. he doesn't spread it around and becomes predictable. Sure the stats look great and the Brady-Welker link catches the eye but it makes the O vulnerable in the moments that mattered, which is when you naturally have to play the toughest Ds too. Is it a coincidence that the Pats haven't won a SB since the Brady-Welker connection became the focal point of the Pats attack? Well, let's just say I don't believe in those and for the record the Pats had no business making last year's SB to begin with as the Ravens simply refused to go there themselves.
And Welker making some crunch-time drops didn't made his case for top dollar contract any better either.
So, imo at least, the Pats (i.e. BB) realised they had to shake Brady off his comfort zone and envisioned a diminished role for Welker anyway, which would naturally diminish his production and value to the new approach on offense where he would no longer be the sink-hole for Brady's passes he's been for the past 6 years. From there, they no longer needed a guy who could give you Welker's record production in a season. Would they have liked keeping Welker? I believe so but considering the above, his age and his slowing down already, he was no longer irreplaceable for the team and they put a limit on how much he was worth to them ... obviously nowhere as much as people thought and less than what he's worth to the Broncos.
One could make the argument even that the Pats needed to get rid of Welker altogether only and only to jostle Brady oout of his comfort zone. TBH, their offer to Welker - one they probably knew he wouldn't take - could be seen as their way of moving on from Wes for good.
It would be a challenge restocking on WRs from free agency and the draft, as well as facing a Broncos team that now features Welker too on top what they already had, but I trust in BB for the former and Peyton's play-off record, in the cold, for the latter
- - - Updated - - -
got time to read? Look up
And you are right, it's not the whole story there - NE is pretty well stocked roster-wise, while entering FA-cy with 25+ mil in cap room. Point is, they could have matched Bronco's offer to Welker(he gave them a chance, reportedly), which was surprisingly affordable anyway, but they didn't.
It's true that they may have been some ego-play there and more importantly, as you mentioned above, Welker has been taking big hits for years now and there is no way this won't start showing anytime soon. It's also true that he's slowed down over the past season or two especially noticeable towards the 4th quarter of a game or end of the season.
But I think the main reason for valuing Welker so little when it cam to his role for the Pats was hidden elsewhere - BB finally realized that those stats Welker is so famous for (number of catches, throws at him, etc, etc) mean also that the offense was becoming too predictable and easy to solve/stop by the top Ds in the league. The Welker-Brady connection worked well vs poor teams but when it came to doing it in crunch time in the POffs, it often stuttered (Ravens, Giants, Jets, 49ers last reg season game etc). Why? Because Welker was Brady's security blanket and what does a man do when he is facing a tough D i.e. when he needs a sure connection in crunch time? He naturally goes to his sure thing i.e. he doesn't spread it around and becomes predictable. Sure the stats look great and the Brady-Welker link catches the eye but it makes the O vulnerable in the moments that mattered, which is when you naturally have to play the toughest Ds too. Is it a coincidence that the Pats haven't won a SB since the Brady-Welker connection became the focal point of the Pats attack? Well, let's just say I don't believe in those and for the record the Pats had no business making last year's SB to begin with as the Ravens simply refused to go there themselves.
And Welker making some crunch-time drops didn't made his case for top dollar contract any better either.
So, imo at least, the Pats (i.e. BB) realised they had to shake Brady off his comfort zone and envisioned a diminished role for Welker anyway, which would naturally diminish his production and value to the new approach on offense where he would no longer be the sink-hole for Brady's passes he's been for the past 6 years. From there, they no longer needed a guy who could give you Welker's record production in a season. Would they have liked keeping Welker? I believe so but considering the above, his age and his slowing down already, he was no longer irreplaceable for the team and they put a limit on how much he was worth to them ... obviously nowhere as much as people thought and less than what he's worth to the Broncos.
One could make the argument even that the Pats needed to get rid of Welker altogether only and only to jostle Brady oout of his comfort zone. TBH, their offer to Welker - one they probably knew he wouldn't take - could be seen as their way of moving on from Wes for good.
It would be a challenge restocking on WRs from free agency and the draft, as well as facing a Broncos team that now features Welker too on top what they already had, but I trust in BB for the former and Peyton's play-off record, in the cold, for the latter
- - - Updated - - -
got time to read? Look up
The question is this now.
Where do the Patriots go from here with their wideout situation?
Do they go after Jennings, and would reallistically have to offer twice as much per season for a guy who is injury prone the last couple of years?
I don't think there is any way that Lloyd gets cut now. He's the only legit WR they have now.
- - - Updated - - -
And the Patriots just signed Amendola to a 5 year deal.
5 years/ 31 million dollars.
You've got to be kidding me.
Guy is never healthy.
So much for that "security blanket" theory, acmilan
Where do the Patriots go from here with their wideout situation?
Do they go after Jennings, and would reallistically have to offer twice as much per season for a guy who is injury prone the last couple of years?
I don't think there is any way that Lloyd gets cut now. He's the only legit WR they have now.
- - - Updated - - -
And the Patriots just signed Amendola to a 5 year deal.
5 years/ 31 million dollars.
You've got to be kidding me.
Guy is never healthy.
So much for that "security blanket" theory, acmilan
Wow, AC. And you called me out for being a 9er homer the other day?
Given the relationship with Brady, the money, and the exceptionally short term on the deal - making it basically a zero risk deal - I see this as being an absolutely brutal decision by the Pats. Brutal. The numbers he posted also don't really indicate a decline of any kind to me, and all of that talk about the safety blanket - c'mon. You're talking about one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game, I totally disagree that Tom Brady having his favourite target against tough teams creates problems. I don't see it in the numbers from most of those tough games, I don't see it in the P-off totals. That whole comfort zone thing... I do not buy any of it. Plus you lose his versatility for the return game.
You had injuries to Gronk, and Hernandez was slowed by health. That's going to make an offence more predictable. They'll use Hernandez to fill that void some, but jeez.
Also, the health concerns are overblown, this is a guy who tore his frigging ACL, and, as Sergio mentioned, has missed 3 games in 6 years, playing the way he does. Disrespected by management, and if I were a Pats fan, I would be Pissed
Given the relationship with Brady, the money, and the exceptionally short term on the deal - making it basically a zero risk deal - I see this as being an absolutely brutal decision by the Pats. Brutal. The numbers he posted also don't really indicate a decline of any kind to me, and all of that talk about the safety blanket - c'mon. You're talking about one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game, I totally disagree that Tom Brady having his favourite target against tough teams creates problems. I don't see it in the numbers from most of those tough games, I don't see it in the P-off totals. That whole comfort zone thing... I do not buy any of it. Plus you lose his versatility for the return game.
You had injuries to Gronk, and Hernandez was slowed by health. That's going to make an offence more predictable. They'll use Hernandez to fill that void some, but jeez.
Also, the health concerns are overblown, this is a guy who tore his frigging ACL, and, as Sergio mentioned, has missed 3 games in 6 years, playing the way he does. Disrespected by management, and if I were a Pats fan, I would be Pissed