The Brady timeline makes me want this more than trading MG for even #11.Michael GiardiVerified account @MikeGiardi 1h1 hour ago
Lombardi predicts Butler back to NE under tender. Also tries to dissuade Saints from making trade. Says should target RSherman.
Yeah I kind of feel the same way - get #6 at whatever cost - but I also want them to remain good, like, foreverThe Brady timeline makes me want this more than trading MG for even #11.
Why on earth would Sherman be available for NO?
Bad things usually happen when you target Richard Sherman.Michael GiardiVerified account @MikeGiardi 1h1 hour ago
Lombardi predicts Butler back to NE under tender. Also tries to dissuade Saints from making trade. Says should target RSherman.
The Patriots are about to do just that...But that would put them in a position of trying to replace both starting corners this year and that makes this very unlikely to happen.
True, but the Pats have BB who will change his scheme to suit his personnel if he doesn't have the guys he wants for the old scheme. Carroll & the hawks are pretty much the opposite. We find players to fit the D. We don't really alter the D to fit the players.The Patriots are about to do just that...
You're missing it. Butler will be going to the Seahawks.It would be such a great fake-out to pull off the JG deal while the focus is on Butler
And they did it before, bringing in Revis and Browner.The Patriots are about to do just that...
There was also considerable off-field smoke with Jones. I think that can't be understated. Reiss aside, there is none of that with Butler. I don't know if that makes a late 1st for Butler a bad deal, but I think Jones could have gotten a better package back if he didn't have the synthetic marijuana incident.This is basically the Chandler Jones situation all over again. They have more leverage here because of the RFA status, but it comes down to one year of a very good player and an excellent price who may be unhappy, or the draft pick. They got a late 2 for Jones; getting a late 1 for Butler would seem reasonable in that light.
And then again, the year after.You're missing it. Butler will be going to the Seahawks.
And they did it before, bringing in Revis and Browner.
I see what you did there.There was also considerable off-field smoke with Jones. I think that can't be understated. Reiss aside, there is none of that with Butler. I don't know if that makes a late 1st for Butler a bad deal, but I think Jones could have gotten a better package back if he didn't have the synthetic marijuana incident.
If you believed the Steelers, who need corner help and have cap space, were prepared to make him an offer that you likely wouldn't match, would you be happy if you turned down a trade with the Saints even for 32? I'd rather have him on the Saints than have him on the Steelers for pick 30.But that rationale ignores that if NE agreed to that arrangment that why wouldn't they just shop the right to negotiate with Butler all over the league ? Doubtful they couldn't do better than 32 plus later rounds.
The complications journalists are referring to seem to be that the Pats need to be very careful about how they pull off the compensation here. They cannot make the Cooks trade appear to include a player whom they had no rights to (a RFA who hadn't signed the tender).Belichick and Payton are friends. I firmly believe if a deal happens it was discussed by the two before the Cooks deal as part 2 of a 2 parter.
12. Cleveland Browns from Philadelphia Eagles Prob not interested but have the cap room but they'd have to deal number 1 not happeningI'd take #32 and have Butler in the NFC over getting #30 and having him patch up the main flaw on our chief AFC rivals.
Then again, it depends on what the offer sheet is that Butler signs, if it goes that route.
Ok, agree to disagree. Keeping Butler off the Steelers, Raiders, Broncos, and the AFC East, among others, would be worth draft points that are the equivalent of a fifth or sixth round pick to me.I would take the 30th over the 32nd for sure.
Since I used the term "overqualified" and it's ridiculously imprecise, I'm a little sheepish to add that I did write "almost overqualified."Using the assumption that they want to get away from or minimize the the Safety Help coverage technique.
You state Butler is "overqualified" as the #2 CB. I disagree. He is probably the perfect #2. He proved it this year by consistently covering #2s with no help.
How did you rank Ryan? I assume under qualified as he needed Safety help to be competent, but to be fair that was on Mega Star WRs.
So who fits in between Butler level and Ryan Level that you would trust on a #2 opposite Gilmore?
Ryan is already making 10mil/yr in this market.
From a cost perspective IMHO paying 13-15 million to both CBs might be a better idea then a "15 Million dollar guy" and a "10 Million dollar guy". Especially when that 10 Million dollar guy probably needs the Safety help we are trying to minimize.
Whats the price point of the guy your looking for? (Better then Logan, Not as good as Butler).
Now off field considerations (Contract Malcontent, Rookie Agent) might devalue Butler, but a s #2 he is perfect.
I don't think this is really it. I'd be really surprised if there's a CB-cap in the organization - it's just not a good way to allocate resources.You make decisions based on what your needs are, and what you have left for resources, not on arbitrary cap percentages.It seems like BB wants to pay no more than $24 million for Gilmore and Butler (if I have the rumored offers to Butler during the season correct) and, given his concerns for current roster construction and long term implications, there's probably a good reason for it.
Has this ever been proven? Given how "well" Butler's agent has handled things, it would be nice to have independent verification that this statement was madeIf you look back to when the Patriots told Butler "They wouldn't pay a CB 10M+" ...
Pretty sure that window is gonna be nailed shut and insulated before the Saints are good again.One reason that NO might overpay for Butler (i.e. more than pick 32) is the "Drew Brees window" isn't open forever either. He's 38 going into the 2017 season (and 39 by the next Super Bowl). Wait one more year to *maybe* solve your cornerback problem, and it might be too late.
Pretty sure that window is gonna be nailed shut and insulated before the Saints are good again.
If he has his head on straight after all this, there's really nothing wrong with it. If he can't keep it from affecting his play, it can be an issue. It seems as though the Patriots historically haven't liked to take that risk.Remind me again why the Patriot should settle for anything less than the NO first round pick (#11). The alternative is having Butler in the fold for one more year at $3.9MM. What's not to like about that?
Well they have to weigh what a year of Butler plus a comp pick is worth vs. a trade.Remind me again why the Patriot should settle for anything less than the NO first round pick (#11). The alternative is having Butler in the fold for one more year at $3.9MM. What's not to like about that?
Particularly because, as it stands, they don't have a pick until the third round at the momentIs Butler for one year at $3.9M plus a 2019 comp pick (3rd round likely) worth more than the 32nd pick? in 2017? I think that is very debatable.
This is true, assuming they keep Jimmy.Particularly because, as it stands, they don't have a pick until the third round at the moment
Don't see why either side would agree to this. On the Patriots side, if they really want to keep him they can simply pay him the tender amount. (I suppose a better deal would eliminate the chance he holds out, but not sure whether that is worth ~6m or whatever extra they would have to pay for a "market" deal.)Maybe it's just my fever talking, but is there any reason the Pats wouldn't negotiate a one-year contract with Butler worth something near market rate?
I understand why you would say that but I would rather have one year of Gilmore and Butler and then get a lower pick than lose Butler now, get the 32 and go with Rowe, C. Jones, J. Jones or someone else.This is true, assuming they keep Jimmy.
And to answer my own question, if we take it as a given that Butler will leave after 2017 if he is forced to play on the tender, then I would trade him for 32 in a heartbeat.
Also, if he is forced to play on the tender, I am going to guess he holds out and only plays the minimum 6 games. So it may just be 6 games of Butler and a 2019 3rd round comp pick vs. whatever they can get for him this year. They traded Collins halfway through the year and only got a 3rd round comp pick back. By comparison 32 for Butler seems awesome.
Only reason the Patriots would consider something like this is if they think Butler otherwise would be given an offer that they don't want to match by a team whose draft pick they value less than a year of Butler. The other reason might be to trade him.Don't see why either side would agree to this.
It actually does better than that -- it knocks $3.4 million off the cap and increases their current cap room to about $31 million.Trading Butler gets a high pick back, keeps the 2018 franchise tag open, and doesn't increase the salary cap.
I get where you are coming from, and I also view 2017 as an all-in, go for #6 type of year, but at the same time their goal is to remain excellent for the long haul. From that perspective trading Butler helps them be better in 2018-2021 (assuming a first round pick in 2017 plays 5 years)I understand why you would say that but I would rather have one year of Gilmore and Butler and then get a lower pick than lose Butler now, get the 32 and go with Rowe, C. Jones, J. Jones or someone else.
I say that because I view the 2017 Pats as truly loaded and, at this very early time in the calendar, as having a realistic shot at title contention. And while I believe that will continue to be the case going forward, nothing is at all guaranteed and things can change fast. At this time, with this team, I'd trade increasing the odds on 2017 for a lower draft order in the future as Butler compensation. I also say that because I view the 32nd pick as being low enough in the round as to not be at all a sure thing.
The bottom line for me is that the Gilmore- Butler combination at corner would be extremely strong, while a Gilmore-Rowe combination would be much more of a wild card. Given how strong the Pats look seemingly everywhere else, I'd rather not weaken such an important position.
I remain somewhat baffled as to why BB and Malcolm (and his agents) can't forge a middle ground. Perhaps the relationship has been sufficiently soured by the negotiations thus far but that seems to be a bit simplistic.
Butler-Rowe just won a Super Bowl against a prolific passing team. So, unless you see a real dropoff from Butler to Gilmore, I don't see how they're weakerThe bottom line for me is that the Gilmore- Butler combination at corner would be extremely strong, while a Gilmore-Rowe combination would be much more of a wild card. Given how strong the Pats look seemingly everywhere else, I'd rather not weaken such an important position.
Logan Ryan played all 49 defensive snaps in the Super Bowl.Butler-Rowe just won a Super Bowl against a prolific passing team. So, unless you see a real dropoff from Butler to Gilmore, I don't see how they're weaker
Yes he did, but that has nothing to do with the question that was posed: Would Gilmore-Rowe be worse than Butler-RoweLogan Ryan played all 49 defensive snaps in the Super Bowl.
I meant Butler and Gilmore as your top two corners.Yes he did, but that has nothing to do with the question that was posed: Would Gilmore-Rowe be worse than Butler-Rowe