Pitt can't match...unless

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

    Knowing Colbert's style, he's no dummy, so if I am him, take the pick.



    My guess is that was what Colbert was thinking all along.  He was probably thinking if no one takes Sanders at 1.3 million (or whatever the tender amount was), we've got a pretty good third receiver at low cost.  If they do want to offer him something better, then we get a third rounder that we can use to help us get a replacement, who we'll then have for a few years on a low-cost rookie deal. It's not a bad move by Colbert, but it's also not a bad pick up for the Pats if the Pats end up with him.  

    I still would like the Pats to draft a receiver with one of their top two picks.  If they get a decent rookie, they'd really have a nice receiver group, I think, mostly because they'll have more diversity than they've had in a while at that position. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    it alkso begs the question is Pitts making only a financial decision? Why arent the Pats looking at the WR's on the market and seeing for half the Sanders money they could get a stud in the draft. Is this an admission that they do not do a good job scouting/rating college WR's much prefering an NFL resume on WR's?

    I find it odd, the Pats of all teams, going after URFA for a 3rd rounder in such a deep WR draft...seems so un-Patriotic.

     




     

    I dont see how this is unlike BB: he likes concrete value not football fantasy value - meaning he thinks that because he feels safer about the value of Sanders he is worth more than the gamble of a totally raw rookie who could flop. You or I may differ with BB on evaluation but it is very like BB to want to be on solid ground and for a reasonable cost.

     



    Sanders, who scouting comments is deemed an average player at $2.5 and for 1 year vs a 2nd rounder WR at maybe $700 who could be a stud? And give up a 3rd round draft choice?Especially with Edelman back in the fold...when have the Pats ever done something like this?

    I like Sanders. Now that Edelman is in the fold, not sure I like him at $2.5 and for a 3rd

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to rkarp's comment:



    Sanders, who scouting comments is deemed an average player at $2.5 and for 1 year vs a 2nd rounder WR at maybe $700 who could be a stud? And give up a 3rd round draft choice?Especially with Edelman back in the fold...when have the Pats ever done something like this?



    Welker?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

     

    Knowing Colbert's style, he's no dummy, so if I am him, take the pick.

     



    My guess is that was what Colbert was thinking all along.  He was probably thinking if no one takes Sanders at 1.3 million (or whatever the tender amount was), we've got a pretty good third receiver at low cost.  If they do want to offer him something better, then we get a third rounder that we can use to help us get a replacement, who we'll then have for a few years on a low-cost rookie deal. It's not a bad move by Colbert, but it's also not a bad pick up for the Pats if the Pats end up with him.  

     

    I still would like the Pats to draft a receiver with one of their top two picks.  If they get a decent rookie, they'd really have a nice receiver group, I think, mostly because they'll have more diversity than they've had in a while at that position. 




    Not saying I dont like  your idea but assuming that happens, how would project your depth chart. We have Amendola, Jones, Edleman(?), Jenkins(?), Sanders, Slater(?)

    That right there is 6, which is I think is there max and then you have the issue of mulitple tight ends and our DE's are plentiful so im not seeing how we can fit a top draft pick who HAS to stick, rather I see BB taking a 7th rounder of Sanders comes and see if he can beat out anyone. There is a chance that Jenkins,, Slater, or Edleman could be cut, but none of these new guys can play s/t like Slater and Amendola on punt returns would be like watching a scary movie waiting for an injury. Gronk, Hern, Hooman, Ballard, Fells,etc

    I just dont see it

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:



    Sanders, who scouting comments is deemed an average player at $2.5 and for 1 year vs a 2nd rounder WR at maybe $700 who could be a stud? And give up a 3rd round draft choice?Especially with Edelman back in the fold... when have the Pats ever done something like this?

     

     



    Welker?

     



    yes, you are correct. But Welker was then signed for 5 years...Sanders was offered 1, correct?

    Can the Pats renegotiate Sanders immediately, or is there a waiting period after signing a RFA?

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    I'm not as sold on Edelman as everyone else seems to be.  Never thought he was much of a receiver.  I do like him as depth and, mostly, as a punt returner.  But I think Sanders is a better receiver, particularly if you want someone who can line up outside and challenge deep.  I think the only reason the Pats used him outside last season was because they had no one else other than Lloyd.  They started the season with just four receivers (I'm not counting Slater)--Lloyd, Welker, Salas, and Edelman--so who else would line up outside opposite Lloyd? 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    yes, you are correct. But Welker was then signed for 5 years...Sanders was offered 1, correct?

     

    Can the Pats renegotiate Sanders immediately, or is there a waiting period after signing a RFA?

     



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

     

    "If New England then signs Sanders to a long-term contract at some point in the near future, there would likely be all sorts of angry reaction around the league. However, there is no rule in the collective bargaining agreement against extending a restricted free agent in this situation.

    The only rule in Article 9, Section 3 that applies to this situation is a set of language that prevents the "New Club" (New England, in this scenario) from reducing the player's salary in the first year.

    "Neither the player nor the New Club may exercise an option in such Player Contract that reduces Salary in the first League Year of such contract until after the end of the first regular season covered by the Contract," the CBA reads.

    Thus, the Patriots are free to sign Sanders to a long-term deal if the Steelers fail to match the one-year offer."

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    From the same article I just posted:

    On face value, the Patriots would be giving up a third-round pick for a player for only one year. That's where others around the NFL begin to suspend belief.

    "I don't believe for a second that Bill Belichick is giving up a third-round pick for Sanders for only one year," an executive with an AFC team said. "Yeah, if it was October and you were desperate for a specific guy because you thought he would make a difference, maybe. But Sanders isn't that type of guy. Nice potential, he has flashed some ability, but you don't do this."

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    yes, you are correct. But Welker was then signed for 5 years...Sanders was offered 1, correct?

     

    Can the Pats renegotiate Sanders immediately, or is there a waiting period after signing a RFA?

     

     



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

     

     

    "If New England then signs Sanders to a long-term contract at some point in the near future, there would likely be all sorts of angry reaction around the league. However, there is no rule in the collective bargaining agreement against extending a restricted free agent in this situation.

    The only rule in Article 9, Section 3 that applies to this situation is a set of language that prevents the "New Club" (New England, in this scenario) from reducing the player's salary in the first year.

    "Neither the player nor the New Club may exercise an option in such Player Contract that reduces Salary in the first League Year of such contract until after the end of the first regular season covered by the Contract," the CBA reads.

    Thus, the Patriots are free to sign Sanders to a long-term deal if the Steelers fail to match the one-year offer."



    so Sanders for 3-4 years...first year $2.5 guaranteed....total deal 3/$10-$12 with maybe $4 guaranteed?

    Has Sanders shown that kind of ability/potential?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BuzyDizzyIzzy. Show BuzyDizzyIzzy's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

    The Pats offered Emmanuel Sanders a 1 year 2.5 million dollar contract to steal him from AFC rival Pittsburgh Steelers, but the ball is in Pittsburgh's court as they now have a chance to match the Pats offer. To retain Sanders, Pitt has to be willing to pay that 2.5 mill...

     

    Here's where the genius of Bill Belichick sets in, Pitt only has 1.9 million in free cap space. We'll know if Pitt wants Samuel or not, they'll have to cut someone or restructure someone's contract. 

     

    In other words...BB > Pitt...as usual.

    Curious, how do you know this is the "genious" of BB and not NC?


     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to BuzyDizzyIzzy's comment:

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:

     

    The Pats offered Emmanuel Sanders a 1 year 2.5 million dollar contract to steal him from AFC rival Pittsburgh Steelers, but the ball is in Pittsburgh's court as they now have a chance to match the Pats offer. To retain Sanders, Pitt has to be willing to pay that 2.5 mill...

     

    Here's where the genius of Bill Belichick sets in, Pitt only has 1.9 million in free cap space. We'll know if Pitt wants Samuel or not, they'll have to cut someone or restructure someone's contract. 

     

    In other words...BB > Pitt...as usual.

     

    Curious, how do you know this is the "genious" of BB and not NC?


     



    I think you also need to include EA initials

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

     

    Knowing Colbert's style, he's no dummy, so if I am him, take the pick.

     



    My guess is that was what Colbert was thinking all along.  He was probably thinking if no one takes Sanders at 1.3 million (or whatever the tender amount was), we've got a pretty good third receiver at low cost.  If they do want to offer him something better, then we get a third rounder that we can use to help us get a replacement, who we'll then have for a few years on a low-cost rookie deal. It's not a bad move by Colbert, but it's also not a bad pick up for the Pats if the Pats end up with him.  

     

    I still would like the Pats to draft a receiver with one of their top two picks.  If they get a decent rookie, they'd really have a nice receiver group, I think, mostly because they'll have more diversity than they've had in a while at that position. 

     




     

    Not saying I dont like  your idea but assuming that happens, how would project your depth chart. We have Amendola, Jones, Edleman(?), Jenkins(?), Sanders, Slater(?)

    That right there is 6, which is I think is there max and then you have the issue of mulitple tight ends and our DE's are plentiful so im not seeing how we can fit a top draft pick who HAS to stick, rather I see BB taking a 7th rounder of Sanders comes and see if he can beat out anyone. There is a chance that Jenkins,, Slater, or Edleman could be cut, but none of these new guys can play s/t like Slater and Amendola on punt returns would be like watching a scary movie waiting for an injury. Gronk, Hern, Hooman, Ballard, Fells,etc

    I just dont see it



    I wouldn't make the assumption that guys like Jenkins, Hooman, Fells, Ballard are locks . . . Remember last year when BB brought in a bunch of fullbacks and veteran receivers and then, in the end, cut most of them and suddenly started collecting even more TEs?  I think he looked at what he had and decided going that a heavy TE approach was best.  Next year he could look at his players and swing in some other direction.  My feeling is the WR corps lacks a true number one still and if one is available in the draft, BB could very well decide to go that way and make adjustments to his roster elsewhere.  But he could also use the approach you're suggesting where he brings in a bunch of camp bodies and sees if any of them stick.  It's impossible to predict, but I don't think you can count any approach out this early in the preseason. If BB has any predictable characteristic it's that he keeps all his options open as long as possible. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

     

     

    Knowing Colbert's style, he's no dummy, so if I am him, take the pick.

     



    My guess is that was what Colbert was thinking all along.  He was probably thinking if no one takes Sanders at 1.3 million (or whatever the tender amount was), we've got a pretty good third receiver at low cost.  If they do want to offer him something better, then we get a third rounder that we can use to help us get a replacement, who we'll then have for a few years on a low-cost rookie deal. It's not a bad move by Colbert, but it's also not a bad pick up for the Pats if the Pats end up with him.  

     

    I still would like the Pats to draft a receiver with one of their top two picks.  If they get a decent rookie, they'd really have a nice receiver group, I think, mostly because they'll have more diversity than they've had in a while at that position. 

     




     

    Not saying I dont like  your idea but assuming that happens, how would project your depth chart. We have Amendola, Jones, Edleman(?), Jenkins(?), Sanders, Slater(?)

    That right there is 6, which is I think is there max and then you have the issue of mulitple tight ends and our DE's are plentiful so im not seeing how we can fit a top draft pick who HAS to stick, rather I see BB taking a 7th rounder of Sanders comes and see if he can beat out anyone. There is a chance that Jenkins,, Slater, or Edleman could be cut, but none of these new guys can play s/t like Slater and Amendola on punt returns would be like watching a scary movie waiting for an injury. Gronk, Hern, Hooman, Ballard, Fells,etc

    I just dont see it

     



     

    I wouldn't make the assumption that guys like Jenkins, Hooman, Fells, Ballard are locks . . . Remember last year when BB brought in a bunch of fullbacks and veteran receivers and then, in the end, cut most of them and suddenly started collecting even more TEs?  I think he looked at what he had and decided going that a heavy TE approach was best.  Next year he could look at his players and swing in some other direction.  My feeling is the WR corps lacks a true number one still and if one is available in the draft, BB could very well decide to go that way and make adjustments to his roster elsewhere.  But he could also use the approach you're suggesting where he brings in a bunch of camp bodies and sees if any of them stick.  It's impossible to predict, but I don't think you can count any approach out this early in the preseason. If BB has any predictable characteristic it's that he keeps all his options open as long as possible. 



    they gave Hooman surprisingly big money

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    it alkso begs the question is Pitts making only a financial decision? Why arent the Pats looking at the WR's on the market and seeing for half the Sanders money they could get a stud in the draft. Is this an admission that they do not do a good job scouting/rating college WR's much prefering an NFL resume on WR's?

    I find it odd, the Pats of all teams, going after URFA for a 3rd rounder in such a deep WR draft...seems so un-Patriotic.



    I don't find it odd at all. I don't think it is an admission of what you say.

    i think about it this way....who realistically could the pats draft at the bottom of the third round vs an nfl proven and fairly young WR Like sanders? Are they possibly better? 

    That is a big question that is impossible to definitively answer so why not take the surer bet?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I'm not as sold on Edelman as everyone else seems to be.  Never thought he was much of a receiver.  I do like him as depth and, mostly, as a punt returner.  But I think Sanders is a better receiver, particularly if you want someone who can line up outside and challenge deep.  I think the only reason the Pats used him outside last season was because they had no one else other than Lloyd.  They started the season with just four receivers (I'm not counting Slater)--Lloyd, Welker, Salas, and Edelman--so who else would line up outside opposite Lloyd? 



    +1

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to RidingWithTheKingII's comment:

    Also, Reiss hinted at the Sanders interview being leverage on Lloyd, which some hinted at here.

    I never thought it was either. I think they genuinely liked what Sanders was doing in Pitt and think  he can ascend here. It's probably what they told him during the interview.

    Lloyds situation is not tied to their interest in a much younger, veteran WR.



    +1

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    it alkso begs the question is Pitts making only a financial decision? Why arent the Pats looking at the WR's on the market and seeing for half the Sanders money they could get a stud in the draft. Is this an admission that they do not do a good job scouting/rating college WR's much prefering an NFL resume on WR's?

    I find it odd, the Pats of all teams, going after URFA for a 3rd rounder in such a deep WR draft...seems so un-Patriotic.

     



    I don't find it odd at all. I don't think it is an admission of what you say.

     

    i think about it this way....who realistically could the pats draft at the bottom of the third round vs an nfl proven and fairly young WR Like sanders? Are they possibly better? 

    That is a big question that is impossible to definitively answer so why not take the surer bet?



    Because the maybe surer bet, Sanders, will cost either 1/$2.5m or 3/$10-$12m and so far he has not performed to those numbers. The Pats paying that the of money for a player like Sanders is unusual

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpez. Show jpez's posts

    Re: Pitt can't match...unless

    TOM BRADY HAS A TIGHT A$$!!!!

     

Share