The idea of Ivory is fun. But the last thing we need is a player with a history of having trouble staying on the field. Or at least staying relatively healthy throughout the year.
Why would anyone trade anything for Chandler? I don't understand what the motivation for the other team would be. Teams arnt just going to do the pats a favor for no reason.Chandler is gone. This may seem like a crazy idea, but I wonder if they'll consider trading him this off season. It would save close to 8 mill against the cap and could net them a much needed draft pick rather than letting him walk for nothing in '17.
I think a GFIN offseason would be totally justified given Brady's age, but I doubt pretty highly we'll ever see one.
Why would anyone trade anything for Chandler? I don't understand what the motivation for the other team would be. Teams arnt just going to do the pats a favor for no reason.
2015 validates staying away from GFIN year. You are one or two games away from injury catastrophes that effectively flush the season. Forget the pats. Look at Dallas and pittsburgh.
Justin Coleman as well. They will bring back all the ERFA and probably Siliga, Develin, Waddle as RFA's. I'm not sure they bring Tyms back as an RFA but its possible.2016: I want Hicks and King back. That's the list.
2017: As noted above they should focus on Hightower, Collins, and Butler, but would also see if Sheard would be open to an extension. Keep Jones for 2016 and then let him walk. Vollmer will be tough call....
Cannon and Scott Chandler yes. LaFell doesn't make a ton and its very possible he wasnt fully healthy all year.Cannon and Chandler and LaFell seem like no-brainer cuts, yes?
Decline the Mayo option.
Any other cuts stand out? Looks like Amendola is sticking around after all.
Not trying to nitpick here, but at some point don't your depth guys kind of have to be JAGs? I'm sure we'd all love starting quality players backing up every starter but that's not realistic. I guess you could argue that not all JAGs are created equal. I would suppose that is comes down to a mix of which positions do you like your JAGs vs. the available options to upgrade. For example, I'd be fine with keeping Freeney and Fleming as next two LBers up if the trade off meant they could significantly upgrade the depth/talent at OT.I also think another LB would be important. Even if they extend Hightower and Collins, they are losing Mayo, and the rest of the LB corps are just JAGs.
You don't just look to extend the best players. It's all about value for cost. Ryan is a solid second corner who hasn't made much money in the league and might be willing to take a pretty reasonable deal. That's exactly the type of player you might want to extend.We need to focus on extending Collins and Hightower and Butler. Extending someone like Logan Ryan is, IMO, really really low on the priority list compared to those elite players. He hardly rates as very good, never mind elite.
Its not a crazy idea. Extending all of them is going to be hard and he's the guy to move unless they think Collins or Hightower just are going to have crazy demands.Chandler [Jones] is gone [in '17]. This may seem like a crazy idea, but I wonder if they'll consider trading him this off season. It would save close to 8 mill against the cap and could net them a much needed draft pick rather than letting him walk for nothing in '17.
I think a GFIN offseason would be totally justified given Brady's age, but I doubt pretty highly we'll ever see one.
Well yes, I realize that. I just think Logan Ryan is overrated a bit on this site and others, and I don't think he will be all that difficult to extend, so I don't count it as a high priority. If he wants to sign for a good deal, swell. If I'm the patriots, I'm not putting it at the top of my to-do list.You don't just look to extend the best players. It's all about value for cost. Ryan is a solid second corner who hasn't made much money in the league and might be willing to take a pretty reasonable deal. That's exactly the type of player you might want to extend.
Who knows? But they are aiming for muti-generational success, and that is contrary to all in for any particular year.How many more years of Brady (and Belichick, for that matter) do we have though? Even if this just means we keep all the D guys and let some of them walk in 2017, as opposed to say, trading Jones now for a future 1st, I think there should be at least a little bit of (disciplined) disproportionate weight put on 2016.
Aren't they effectively barred from trading up for a first rounder for this year as a result of deflategate? I believe if they do, they give up that pick and keep their own (29). A silly, punitive clause that is all about the PR of keeping them off the first day of the draft completely (trading up is not a loophole around the punishment since you need to give up assets to do so), but it is what it is.I do NOT want to deal Chandler but if there's a way to recoup a first is that a possibility?
I have no idea how deep this draft is though.
Is that actually true?Aren't they effectively barred from trading up for a first rounder for this year as a result of deflategate? I believe if they do, they give up that pick and keep their own (29). A silly, punitive clause that is all about the PR of keeping them off the first day of the draft completely (trading up is not a loophole around the punishment since you need to give up assets to do so), but it is what it is.
I think we have to view 2016 as the end of the Brady-Belichick window. You can't count on a 40-year-old quarterback to play at the same level as today, and that 2017 UFA list is scary. Combine that with the loss of two draft picks (ugh) that could help replace the UFAs and you're looking at some down years coming up very soon.2017 is also Brady's age 40 season.
Yeah, stepping aside from the Jones thing, I didn't know that they give up the highest first rounder they have.If they get a first, they are losing the highest one under the penalty.
And they are not getting a first for Jones. The bullshit at the police station alone guarantees they are not getting a first for him.
Who knows? But they are aiming for muti-generational success, and that is contrary to all in for any particular year.
Almost every consistently well run team has its own version of what we are facing in 2017. It may be the year before, or the year after or the year after that, but they are facing it.
The pivot point obviously is Brady. Everything after him is a foggy mist at this point. But I have no idea when the decline starts and how steep the slope will be.
If you go all in, you better connect. Health vagaries make that next to impossible. And even if they didn't, they are no guarantees they would even emerge from the AFC next year. You can assume there will be growing pains in Denver, and you might assume Cincy will always be Cincy, but Pittsburgh may be a couple of clicks away from the best team if it can take care of that secondary.
And then, of course, there is the other conference.
Agreed. Think a 2nd and a 4th or 5th is more like it.If they get a first, they are losing the highest one under the penalty.
And they are not getting a first for Jones. The bullshit at the police station alone guarantees they are not getting a first for him.
Of the current free agents:
I would make the (minimum) qualifying offer to Coleman and King.
I would hope the Patriots sign Hicks and Ebner.
Mayo is a post-June cut ($7.6M savings) unless he agrees to a dramatic restructure of some sort
Amendola could be cut, too ($5.6M savings) -- he's getting up there in years and am not sure if he's valuable enough for the back end of his contract
Chandler was terrible this year, but the cap savings are pretty meager if he's cut ($1M hit, $1.5M savings)
I think Lafell stays -- he is fine as the third/fourth wide receiver (and is paid like one).
Even with the cuts, the Patriots don't have a lot of cap room. However, they don't have a lot of immediate needs, either. I imagine that extensions for Collins, Hightower, and possibly Jones, could all be used to lower their 2016 hits. We might see them reach for a luxury signing (Wilkerson?!? Jeffrey?). I sure couldn't complain.
Goes back to Spygate. They should have had two 1st round draft picks that year. People complained then because they didn't lose their more valuable draft pick.Is that actually true?
I never heard that.