What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

emmanuel sanders visits patriots. (1 Viewer)

Per Article 9, section 3© of the CBA:

The player and the New Club may not renegotiate such Player Contract to reduce the Salary in such contract until after the end of the first regular season covered by the Contract.
So maybe they can negotiate a new contract, as long as it does not lower his year 1 salary.

Oh well, we'll see.

 
I wouldn't trust a verbal agreement from the Pats to be honest. Haven't they ####ed players on these before? At least according to disgruntled ex-players?
So? If they don't live up to this hypothetical verbal agreement, he plays for $2.5 million. Still almost double what the Steelers are paying him. No downside.
That wasn't the point that was made above though. The point made above was that there was most likely a verbal agreement. Which from an organization like the Pats means absolutely nothing.

 
I wouldn't trust a verbal agreement from the Pats to be honest. Haven't they ####ed players on these before? At least according to disgruntled ex-players?
So? If they don't live up to this hypothetical verbal agreement, he plays for $2.5 million. Still almost double what the Steelers are paying him. No downside.
That wasn't the point that was made above though. The point made above was that there was most likely a verbal agreement. Which from an organization like the Pats means absolutely nothing.
Pretty sure Comedian got that point and his post makes perfect sense. Even if it only ends up being one year for Sanders and a verbal agreement has not been made or is reneged upon, he is getting paid twice as much as he would with the same contract situation he is presently in, that is in writing.

 
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
Exactly...right now the Pats are a team built for the regular season...their warts really don't get exposed until the playoffs...they are like the Colts in those years prior to finally winning a title...you can almost book them for 12-4 right now but you're really not going to know what their deal is until the playoffs...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think one of the issues for the Pats (and many other teams) is that they were not healthy heading into the post season and/or had key guys get hurt at the end of the year without enough time to get used to playing without those players. They obviously have not been able to score at will in the playoffs like they have in the regular season and there are certainly some issues that get exposed against better teams when it counts the most.

I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
Exactly...right now the Pats are a team built for the regular season...their warts really don't get exposed until the playoffs...they are like the Colts in those years prior to finally winning a title...you can almost book them for 12-4 right now but you're really not going to know what their deal is until the playoffs...
 
Somewhere, don't recall where, made a decent point that part of this for the Steelers may be that if they don't think they'd be able to keep him as a UFA, they might take the draft pick just to avoid not getting anything for him.

Though that said, the Steelers seem like a team that doesn't sign a lot of free agents. What David said earlier is certainly correct that signing free agents offsets those you lose, so you don't get picks for the latter. If a team doesn't tend to sign free agents, then a possible compensatory pick would be more likely to happen. So that view could offset the "let's just take the pick as we'll lose him in a year anyway part.

Also, a compensatory pick for losing a UFA Sanders would be in the 2015 draft, not the 2014 one.

 
Per Article 9, section 3© of the CBA:

The player and the New Club may not renegotiate such Player Contract to reduce the Salary in such contract until after the end of the first regular season covered by the Contract.
So maybe they can negotiate a new contract, as long as it does not lower his year 1 salary.

Oh well, we'll see.
Yeah, here's an article that says just that:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--will-pats-later-sign-emmanuel-sanders-to-longer-deal--210519500.html

 
Greg Russell said:
Somewhere, don't recall where, made a decent point that part of this for the Steelers may be that if they don't think they'd be able to keep him as a UFA, they might take the draft pick just to avoid not getting anything for him.

Though that said, the Steelers seem like a team that doesn't sign a lot of free agents. What David said earlier is certainly correct that signing free agents offsets those you lose, so you don't get picks for the latter. If a team doesn't tend to sign free agents, then a possible compensatory pick would be more likely to happen. So that view could offset the "let's just take the pick as we'll lose him in a year anyway part.

Also, a compensatory pick for losing a UFA Sanders would be in the 2015 draft, not the 2014 one.
The Steelers seem like they're happy to get a 3rd back for a player they got 3 cheap years out of.

 
cstu said:
Greg Russell said:
Somewhere, don't recall where, made a decent point that part of this for the Steelers may be that if they don't think they'd be able to keep him as a UFA, they might take the draft pick just to avoid not getting anything for him.

Though that said, the Steelers seem like a team that doesn't sign a lot of free agents. What David said earlier is certainly correct that signing free agents offsets those you lose, so you don't get picks for the latter. If a team doesn't tend to sign free agents, then a possible compensatory pick would be more likely to happen. So that view could offset the "let's just take the pick as we'll lose him in a year anyway part.

Also, a compensatory pick for losing a UFA Sanders would be in the 2015 draft, not the 2014 one.
The Steelers seem like they're happy to get a 3rd back for a player they got 3 cheap years out of.
Or they can't afford to keep him if they want to sign a RB too. This is not a strong RB class, but is a really deep WR class. So maybe they shifted priorities, and cap dollars, toward a FA RB so they can grab a WR dirt cheap in the second or third.

 
Or they can't afford to keep him if they want to sign a RB too. This is not a strong RB class, but is a really deep WR class. So maybe they shifted priorities, and cap dollars, toward a FA RB so they can grab a WR dirt cheap in the second or third.
They need a bigger bodied WR to start opposite Brown. Haley's offenses has usually featured bigger WR's and I've read several times it's not an accident but his preference. You look at strong chance Heath Miller is not ready for the opener and suddenly and OC with a preference for bigger WR's has two small guys as his starters and no reliable physical big pass catcher that has much left to offer. (Plax/Cotchery) I think they view Sanders as a slot guy they were not going to resign so yea I think they are happy to get a third rounder for him.

No team drafts WR's better than the Steelers and no does it worse than the Patriots. This should the Pat's gameplan from now on. Just let Pitt draft and develop them and than sign them later.

 
Or they can't afford to keep him if they want to sign a RB too. This is not a strong RB class, but is a really deep WR class. So maybe they shifted priorities, and cap dollars, toward a FA RB so they can grab a WR dirt cheap in the second or third.
They need a bigger bodied WR to start opposite Brown. Haley's offenses has usually featured bigger WR's and I've read several times it's not an accident but his preference. You look at strong chance Heath Miller is not ready for the opener and suddenly and OC with a preference for bigger WR's has two small guys as his starters and no reliable physical big pass catcher that has much left to offer. (Plax/Cotchery) I think they view Sanders as a slot guy they were not going to resign so yea I think they are happy to get a third rounder for him.

No team drafts WR's better than the Steelers and no does it worse than the Patriots. This should the Pat's gameplan from now on. Just let Pitt draft and develop them and than sign them later.
That's an excellent analysis. And I believe they can get that big body in the 2nd and maybe even in the 3rd.

 
Oh, and with as fragile as Amendola is, maybe Sanders is the insurance policy in the slot and could be up for a monster year...

 
cstu said:
Greg Russell said:
Somewhere, don't recall where, made a decent point that part of this for the Steelers may be that if they don't think they'd be able to keep him as a UFA, they might take the draft pick just to avoid not getting anything for him.

Though that said, the Steelers seem like a team that doesn't sign a lot of free agents. What David said earlier is certainly correct that signing free agents offsets those you lose, so you don't get picks for the latter. If a team doesn't tend to sign free agents, then a possible compensatory pick would be more likely to happen. So that view could offset the "let's just take the pick as we'll lose him in a year anyway part.

Also, a compensatory pick for losing a UFA Sanders would be in the 2015 draft, not the 2014 one.
The Steelers seem like they're happy to get a 3rd back for a player they got 3 cheap years out of.
Or they can't afford to keep him if they want to sign a RB too. This is not a strong RB class, but is a really deep WR class. So maybe they shifted priorities, and cap dollars, toward a FA RB so they can grab a WR dirt cheap in the second or third.
Because of the depth at WR they probably think they can get a receiver just as good as Sanders with the 3rd - and get him on a 4 year contract worth the same as one year of Sanders.

 
NFL.com's Gregg Rosenthal reports that during a radio interview with SiriusXm Antonio Brown said he doubts the Steelers will sign Sander's offer sheet

 
If you stop and think about it, this seems to make sense for both sides. In the past 15 years, the only WR that the Pats drafted that amounted to much overall was Deion Branch. The Steelers, though, drafted Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown, etc. BB has said he much prefers guys that have played in the league some over straight rookies. The Pats would likely have wasted their 3rd rounder on another mediocre WR or DB anyway.

 
If you stop and think about it, this seems to make sense for both sides. In the past 15 years, the only WR that the Pats drafted that amounted to much overall was Deion Branch. The Steelers, though, drafted Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown, etc. BB has said he much prefers guys that have played in the league some over straight rookies. The Pats would likely have wasted their 3rd rounder on another mediocre WR or DB anyway.
:goodposting:

 
If you stop and think about it, this seems to make sense for both sides. In the past 15 years, the only WR that the Pats drafted that amounted to much overall was Deion Branch. The Steelers, though, drafted Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown, etc. BB has said he much prefers guys that have played in the league some over straight rookies. The Pats would likely have wasted their 3rd rounder on another mediocre WR or DB anyway.
I agree with this, which begs the question, Why only sign ES to a 2.5 MIL tender ?

If they had open their wallet a little wider, PITT would have walked away immediately,

thus guaranteeing New England winning his rights.

 
David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.

 
If you stop and think about it, this seems to make sense for both sides. In the past 15 years, the only WR that the Pats drafted that amounted to much overall was Deion Branch. The Steelers, though, drafted Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown, etc. BB has said he much prefers guys that have played in the league some over straight rookies. The Pats would likely have wasted their 3rd rounder on another mediocre WR or DB anyway.
I agree with this, which begs the question, Why only sign ES to a 2.5 MIL tender ?

If they had open their wallet a little wider, PITT would have walked away immediately,

thus guaranteeing New England winning his rights.
They probably don't feel ES is worth that much...I know I don't.

 
If you stop and think about it, this seems to make sense for both sides. In the past 15 years, the only WR that the Pats drafted that amounted to much overall was Deion Branch. The Steelers, though, drafted Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown, etc. BB has said he much prefers guys that have played in the league some over straight rookies. The Pats would likely have wasted their 3rd rounder on another mediocre WR or DB anyway.
I agree with this, which begs the question, Why only sign ES to a 2.5 MIL tender ?

If they had open their wallet a little wider, PITT would have walked away immediately,

thus guaranteeing New England winning his rights.
Why pay $3 for something you can buy for $2.50? I know Clayton is reporting it's 50/50 but I put the odds of Pittsburgh matching at something closer to 10%.

 
David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
The only threat in their division is the Dolphins and I don't think they are good enough to beat them yet. I think the Pats are making a mistake by not trading Mallett and using the pick(s) to bolster their secondary.

 
That's why they play the games. The Pats scored 75 points more than any other team last year. If you watched their games last year, Lloyd had a ton of catches where he ran a simple sideline route, caught the ball, and fell down or stepped out of bounds. Similar to what they had Branch doing the past few years. I'm pretty sure they will have someone on the roster that can pull those plays off.

It remains to be seen if they can replace Welker's production. It may not be just one guy, but I don't think they will miss out on production from the slot. Their whole team seemingly is made up of slot receivers. As I see it, their offense will not go from first in scoring (557 total points scored) to middle of the pack. Their issues in the regular season have been on defensive, and while they didn't add a ton of new guys or depth, the younger guys are still improving.

Bottom line, I don't think in a sum of all the parts sense the Pats got worse. Troy Brown averaged 90+ catches and 1000+ yards with Brady playing out of the slot. No one heard of Welker before he went to NE. So to think that no one else could be productive there or that Amendola will bomb may be premature.

Put another way, we've been hearing for years all the things the Pats have done wrong: they can't draft, their personnel moves will kill them, they are cheap, they lowball offers, they don't know what they are doing, or whatever. But they are in the mix every year with all the things they've done. Maybe this is the time that they blew it (using Welker as the catalyst) and their team will suffer and crumble. But I doubt it. For a team with (allegedly) so many faults, they seem to do a lot of winning. People can certainly point to their shortcomings in the playoffs, but I don't see where people can complain too much about their regular season accomplishments.

David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
 
People can certainly point to their shortcomings in the playoffs, but I don't see where people can complain too much about their regular season accomplishments.
Exactly. Not worried about the offense at all, David.

 
I hate the Patriots. I love that they haven't won the SB since they got caught cheating. But this is spot on analysis....

That's why they play the games. The Pats scored 75 points more than any other team last year. If you watched their games last year, Lloyd had a ton of catches where he ran a simple sideline route, caught the ball, and fell down or stepped out of bounds. Similar to what they had Branch doing the past few years. I'm pretty sure they will have someone on the roster that can pull those plays off.

It remains to be seen if they can replace Welker's production. It may not be just one guy, but I don't think they will miss out on production from the slot. Their whole team seemingly is made up of slot receivers. As I see it, their offense will not go from first in scoring (557 total points scored) to middle of the pack. Their issues in the regular season have been on defensive, and while they didn't add a ton of new guys or depth, the younger guys are still improving.

Bottom line, I don't think in a sum of all the parts sense the Pats got worse. Troy Brown averaged 90+ catches and 1000+ yards with Brady playing out of the slot. No one heard of Welker before he went to NE. So to think that no one else could be productive there or that Amendola will bomb may be premature.

Put another way, we've been hearing for years all the things the Pats have done wrong: they can't draft, their personnel moves will kill them, they are cheap, they lowball offers, they don't know what they are doing, or whatever. But they are in the mix every year with all the things they've done. Maybe this is the time that they blew it (using Welker as the catalyst) and their team will suffer and crumble. But I doubt it. For a team with (allegedly) so many faults, they seem to do a lot of winning. People can certainly point to their shortcomings in the playoffs, but I don't see where people can complain too much about their regular season accomplishments.

David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
 
David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
The only threat in their division is the Dolphins and I don't think they are good enough to beat them yet. I think the Pats are making a mistake by not trading Mallett and using the pick(s) to bolster their secondary.
Why would you want to trade away Brady's backup? No way the Pats will get a QB anywhere near as good as Mallett, and with Brady getting up there in age, you really need to make sure you have a suitable replacement. And that's exactly what Mallett is, and then some.

 
Since 2001, if we throw out every game the Pats played in their division, the Pats record was still 89-31 (.742). Even if the Pats NEVER played the lowly Bills, Jets, and Dolphins even once all those years, their average season would have been 12-4 playing against the rest of the NFL.

David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
 
David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
you're referencing the 12-4 2006 team?

Reche Caldwell

Troy Brown

Jabar Gaffney

Doug Gabriel

Chad Jackson

 
If you stop and think about it, this seems to make sense for both sides. In the past 15 years, the only WR that the Pats drafted that amounted to much overall was Deion Branch. The Steelers, though, drafted Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown, etc. BB has said he much prefers guys that have played in the league some over straight rookies. The Pats would likely have wasted their 3rd rounder on another mediocre WR or DB anyway.
I agree with this, which begs the question, Why only sign ES to a 2.5 MIL tender ?

If they had open their wallet a little wider, PITT would have walked away immediately,

thus guaranteeing New England winning his rights.
Why pay $3 for something you can buy for $2.50? I know Clayton is reporting it's 50/50 but I put the odds of Pittsburgh matching at something closer to 10%.
yeah, I'd pretty much second that.

I'm sure the pats have a $ value on each player, and whatever it happens to be you'll always get the people saying they should pay him an extra million, then another million, then another, etc.

whatever the figure is they should just add another million.

like, they offer to make deion branch a top 5 paid wr, but we should have paid him more because he wouldn't take the deal.

they've had consistent success partly because they stick to smart money management and don't overpay all these guys like al davis did, so if we don't get sanders, hopefully our season doesn't turn on that guy -- maybe the pats draft another hernandez with that pick.

 
David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
The only threat in their division is the Dolphins and I don't think they are good enough to beat them yet. I think the Pats are making a mistake by not trading Mallett and using the pick(s) to bolster their secondary.
Why would you want to trade away Brady's backup? No way the Pats will get a QB anywhere near as good as Mallett, and with Brady getting up there in age, you really need to make sure you have a suitable replacement. And that's exactly what Mallett is, and then some.
Depends on what your goal is...if it's to win the SB then you worry about Brady's replacement later - after all Brady is guaranteed through 2017 - and build the best team you can. While they would still have a chance with Mallett it's a long shot.

 
David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
The only threat in their division is the Dolphins and I don't think they are good enough to beat them yet. I think the Pats are making a mistake by not trading Mallett and using the pick(s) to bolster their secondary.
Why would you want to trade away Brady's backup? No way the Pats will get a QB anywhere near as good as Mallett, and with Brady getting up there in age, you really need to make sure you have a suitable replacement. And that's exactly what Mallett is, and then some.
Depends on what your goal is...if it's to win the SB then you worry about Brady's replacement later - after all Brady is guaranteed through 2017 - and build the best team you can. While they would still have a chance with Mallett it's a long shot.
I understand what you're saying, but let's just realize the back up qb is part of the team, too.

see 2008

 
David Yudkin said:
Sabertooth said:
I think the Pats are in for a long season.
What would you project their record to be? I have a hard time seeing them winning fewer than 12 games. They have mostly a young team that is improving and they've averaged 13 wins a year the past 3 seasons.
I'd take the under on 12. They used to have professional level receivers, they don't anymore. Gronk and Hernandez are great but both have some serious medical flags. The thing that may prop their record up is being in the worst division in football.
The only threat in their division is the Dolphins and I don't think they are good enough to beat them yet. I think the Pats are making a mistake by not trading Mallett and using the pick(s) to bolster their secondary.
Why would you want to trade away Brady's backup? No way the Pats will get a QB anywhere near as good as Mallett, and with Brady getting up there in age, you really need to make sure you have a suitable replacement. And that's exactly what Mallett is, and then some.
Depends on what your goal is...if it's to win the SB then you worry about Brady's replacement later - after all Brady is guaranteed through 2017 - and build the best team you can. While they would still have a chance with Mallett it's a long shot.
No, your goal is to have a good QB when you need one. If Brady gets hurt, you need to have a someone to fall back on. Mallett is that guy. You can't trade him.

 
If you stop and think about it, this seems to make sense for both sides. In the past 15 years, the only WR that the Pats drafted that amounted to much overall was Deion Branch. The Steelers, though, drafted Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown, etc. BB has said he much prefers guys that have played in the league some over straight rookies. The Pats would likely have wasted their 3rd rounder on another mediocre WR or DB anyway.
True, but they also have a pretty bad track record with free agent WR's.

 
If you stop and think about it, this seems to make sense for both sides. In the past 15 years, the only WR that the Pats drafted that amounted to much overall was Deion Branch. The Steelers, though, drafted Hines Ward, Plaxico Burress, Mike Wallace, Antonio Brown, etc. BB has said he much prefers guys that have played in the league some over straight rookies. The Pats would likely have wasted their 3rd rounder on another mediocre WR or DB anyway.
True, but they also have a pretty bad track record with free agent WR's.
Welker worked out great. I would not consider Lloyd to be a FA bust, his production was fairly in line with his contract. While not FA's they did have to offer draft pick compensation somewhat similar they are giving up to get Sanders to get Moss and that was a homerun. They gave up a low round draft pick to re-acquire Branch and he gave them some solid years.

I'm probably forgetting a lot of people but it seems like their failed FA signings are more of the league minimum, no draft pick comp guys like Donte Stallworth, Greg Salas, etc, etc.

 
Point of order here for this saying the Patriots can't develop WR. It's more like the Patriots won't draft WR. If they drafted as as many WR as Pittsburg I'm guessing they would have dug up a player or two.

 
Point of order here for this saying the Patriots can't develop WR. It's more like the Patriots won't draft WR. If they drafted as as many WR as Pittsburg I'm guessing they would have dug up a player or two.
it's a fair point, but the specific pitt comparison doesn't really hold up.

people ##### about the pats drafting wr pretty much based off 3 guys in teh last 10 years, or whatever it is.

meanwhile, pitt hasn't drafted all that many more at the position, and while they missed on sweed, they hit on wallace, brown, and sanders is apparently good enough for the pats to take.

but, I could probably find 3 guys at every position that every team has missed on.

these kind of small sample size debates are pretty pointless.

I remember when the pats couldn't find a te, and never drafted an upper round lb.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Point of order here for this saying the Patriots can't develop WR. It's more like the Patriots won't draft WR. If they drafted as as many WR as Pittsburg I'm guessing they would have dug up a player or two.
Since '98 the Steelers have drafted 18 and the Patriots have drafted 12.

Here are the WRs drafted that have accumulated 1000 yards for a career...

Ward, RandelEl, Burress, Holmes, Wallace, A Brown, Sanders.

Branch, Givens

 
Sanders has been injured, early and often.... But he is s coming off his best year.

Before antonio brown emerged, it was Sanders that I would always hear about as the impact wr. The guy that runs the best routes, and would make the impact. Subsequently, getting injured and brown emerging.

I think the Pats, andBrady, place a h uge emphasis on running crisp, clean routes. Brady is a rhythym qb, throw to the spot where the wr will be. Sanders will helpin that equation.

Look for them to lock sanders up long term, if they can get past midnight tomorrow with him on the roster still.....

 
The Pats didn't draft Welker but you could argue that they developed him.It's nearly impossible to argue that they have drafted adequately at the WR position but they have dinner pretty well at TE. Gronk and Hernandez have proven to be pretty good players but Watson and Graham before them also played the position well.

Hating them is fine. But you can't discount a team that was a Samuel interception away from a perfect season and a Welker/Brady miscue away from another possible SB victory. The Giants deserved to win those games. But the Pats had their chances.

All teams can hope for is a chance to get there. I don't give a darn how that looks on paper.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top