Time for Patriots to Pay Up?

by Fort Worth on Feb 6, 2008 1:49 PM EST

I am not saying that the Patriots are in decline (they still have Tom Brady in his prime), I just hope they will have some trouble in the future. Pre-2007, they still had good players without spending a lot of money. Furthermore, I am sure there are loopholes in the system that we may not be aware of. Anyway, these are two good reads. Enjoy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2859992

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/WWHI/2007/wwhi2230.htm

Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Also, don't underestimate

The importance of Spygate II. It would never shock me if they lost more picks, and received some more fines. For that matter, suspensions aren't entirely out of the order either.

As much as I didn't the "woofing" of the Giants the week prior to the SB, I was really glad they won. It was nice to see the smug looks of arrogance wiped off of the players/fans faces.

Here's a question, and it deals with the salary cap, young talent, and the next few years. Considering all three, whose roster would you rather have now, Buffalo's, or NE's?

Dynasties do eventually crumble, and I think Buffalo is in better cap shape, has more young talent, and is suited to be the better team in within the next couple of years, if not sooner.

by krytime on Feb 6, 2008 2:04 PM EST reply actions

RE: Your Question

If the quarterbacks were removed from consideration, I would say the Bills are in better shape moving forward than the Patriots.

However, quarterbacks carry a ton of weight in my opinion. At quarterback, the Patriots have a known, sure-fire commodity and the Bills do not.

Overall, I am not sure. I am open to discussion.

by Fort Worth on Feb 6, 2008 2:22 PM EST up reply actions

Great Question

I never gave it much thought, but now that you bring it up, what young, up-and-coming player do the Pats have? That defense is getting old fast, every linebacker on that team is close to collecting social security, The D-Line has two aging stars in Seymour, and Warren. Once Samuel leaves, and Harrison either retires, or is kicked out of the league for being a piece of human waste, that secondary, is pretty thin too. For all the talk of how great the receivers were this year, Stallworth is gone, Jackson was a bust, Gaffney does nothing, Kelly Washington is gone, and unless Moss gets his money, he's gone also. I think other than Brady, the only other guys who I would like are Marriweather, and Maroney, (I might be missing somebody) If the Pats lose more picks, and old guys, they might miss the playoffs next year.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 6, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

RE: Great Question

I forgot about Merriweather. Good call on that. On the other hand, I believe that Ty Warren may actually be a rising star, not an aging star. He is only 26 years old. In the 3-4 defense that they run, defensive linemen are unheralded but very important.

Patriots' best and relatively young players that are still likely to be on the roster in 2008:

Tom Brady, Logan Mankins, Laurence Maroney, Ben Watson, Wes Welker, Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Brandon Merriweather.

And unfortunately they still have the #7 overall selection in the 2008 draft.

I'm glad that their 2006 first-round pick, Chad Jackson, has not developed into much thus far in his short career.

by Fort Worth on Feb 6, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions

You're right

Brady will be around for years, and right now, as much as I like Edwards, he's no Brady.

But as far as the rest of the roster goes, Buffalo (IMO) is in better shape. And it's about friggin time...

What's your take on Spygate II?

by krytime on Feb 6, 2008 2:38 PM EST reply actions

Buffalos young team

I 100% agree about our roster. The past two drafts and our success in signing good undrafted free agents, have created great depth on our team. Some people say that we need a better this or a better that, but look at the depth and fall off of first and second stringers around the NFL.

Most people bring up the situation when Peters was hurt and we brought in Whittle, but take a look at what happens to any team that has a Pro Bowl OL and he gets hurt. The drop off is significant but Whittle is not bad at all.

The thing that everyone needs to realize is that we have some of the best depth in the league (i.e. we were 7-9 with so many hurt players). What we need now are starters and impact players.

TAKE THIS DOWN!!!
If we get three players that are better than what we currently have at any position (logically we are going to go after positions of need), then we will make it to the playoffs.

I don't care if it is the bottom three of almost any needs list on this site. Take any three needs out of WR, TE, DT, WLB, CB and DE. If we fill three of these with starters (which could easily happen... look at hte Giants, they had three or four starting rookies). Take a look at our Cash to Cap Space and the fact that we have 4 picks in the first 3 Rounds. Someone try and convince me we will not get three impact players (sign 1 and draft 2). I do think we can land a fourth which would be huge.

Lets just say that unless Turk falls on his face as the OC or we get killed by injuries again, WE ARE PLAYOFF BOUND!!!

by hilliarddavid on Feb 6, 2008 4:15 PM EST reply actions

The jer store's calling you, Beli-choke...

Anyone else find it ironic that Beli-choke defenders used his mantra of "playing 60 minutes" as an excuse for New England's hideous practice of running up the score all season long and Brady's disingenuous stat-grubbing and then, last Sunday, the entire world watched him refuse to come back on the field for the final play of the Super Bowl? They probably should have saved that TD in Buffalo last November (the one they got after to going for it on 4th and 6, up 42-7 in the 2nd half) for a more important junction in the season.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Feb 8, 2008 7:41 AM EST reply actions

No Doubt

So why, Mr. Belichoke, did you only give 59 minutes and 59 seconds in the biggest game of the season, when you preach to your players "60 minutes"?

I was hoping to see the entire Patriots organization, ownership, coaching staff, and players endure an exhausting, Super Bowl post game "media day" featuring endless questions and answers regarding their arrogance, cheating, chocking, feelings, and disappointment of their season, aired in front of the entire nation. Twist the dagger. Rub in every last grain of salt.

I think the Patriots should participate in Victory-less/Losers parade in downtown Boston to celebrate their loss. Sell hats, t-shirts, DVD's, and go to Disney World.

I recall Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels saying in a press conference at mid-season, in response to their running up the score, that their objective on every possession was to score touchdowns. Fine.

So Mr. McDaniels, Arrogant A$$hole, if your objective was to score touchdowns on every possession, why didn't you go for it on EVERY 4th down for the entire season? Please don't tell me now that you changed your objective. Remain true to your words.

by Fort Worth on Feb 8, 2008 10:25 AM EST up reply actions