Re: Lessons Learned:
posted at 1/19/2010 1:23 AM EST
"You left some elements out - what would it have taken to keep those guys, what did we get, and what did they do after they left.
Asante - not worth the $, maybe Butler is that replacement
Seymour - not much output for huge $, and we get a high first
Branch - washout, we avoided the big $, and got a first round pick
Vrabel was washed up, Burgess was a slight improvement
Only Gaffney was truly regrettable."
Encinitas and ALL:
~Although I agree (as it appears you do too), with the contention illustrated by this particular thread, specifically-That a fitting and adequate replacement has to be somehow procurred to make up for the loss of a given player, You Are Correct in the sense that there are other contingencies at play as well... Namely, The Cost (as you mentioned on keeping a certain player). Yet, There are others of which you make somewhat note of: Seymour and Branch. The sacrificing of what it would take in order to keep them verses The future rewards of letting them leave. I should say "potential rewards" in the sense that We do (or did) not yet know IF a 1st rder can (could) adequately replace these 2 specific players... Yet, It was imho a correct gamble-noting Branch was more a system and Brady product Over and Above a #1 NFL WR (and paying him as such), And Seymour being older, 1 year away from a contract re-up, and injured here in 4 of his 6 years as the second paid highest roster player...so these things made sense.
BUT this now brings to mind Vince Wilfork, and what to do... IMHO, and zbellino too had a trully excellent post I think is dead on, THAT VW is not a trully great 1-of-a-kind 3-4 NT...He takes up a double-team more than adequately, but in no way is he a play-maker too, someone for instance who can collapse a pocket ala Kris Jenkins, or better-Jamaal Williams. Not to mention that The Patriots won a SB fielding the #1 rated defense in the league without a pro-bowl NT (in the form of Ted Washington)... AND IF He wants to be paid as a top 5 D-Lineman rather than a top 5 NT, it becomes a no-brainer to let him walk.
YET this said, Imho-There Is NO even adequate replacement on this roster for Vince Wilfork in the forseeable future...and simply way too many holes to fill otherwise than adding a 3-4 NT along with all the rest. It becomes overall a tough-call then whether to Franchise him (and hope for a VW non-holdout), and all the while hope Brace or someone else comes along nicely..the end result potentially being we'd eventually either have to re-sign him anyways or have to procure a good NT with one of our 3 picks in the first 2 rounds in 2011, thus forsaking more spots to shore up and having 2 critical team vets getting older (Brady/Moss). OR Pats could sign him, and as mentioned-Eat up dollars we could spend elsewhere...
~Just a tough call in all... So much boils down to good and desperately critical vets that are aging and so have a small window of opportunity to take us to the championship, Verses NOT adding to the mass of positional holes we already need to fill by letting some of these other vet-guys walk... Wish I had more answers here...I say SEE-Point #A1 in the first post for the best plan of action: IF N.E. has a small window for certain Star Team Vets to help us make the promised land again (i.e. Brady/Moss), And so-unless we are rebuilding BIG-Time and plan to in some miracle way, Replace even these guys (yea, right), PLEASE Belichick-TRADE-the he!!-UP in the upcoming 2 Drafts...if not even to get better overall players, than at least recognize that you as coach would have to rebuild far many more important team pieces and for far longer IF you stick with this "Drafting for Quantity" garbage...