PDA

View Full Version : Are we targeting Wilfork as a FA in 2010?


lex
04-26-2009, 06:25 PM
OK, NE loaded up on DTs (so much for the idea that none of them were good enough for us) and its been pointed out that Wilforks possible foray into free agencey in 2010 is a big reason. Does anyone think we are targeting him? How would you feel about going after him even if that means foregoing what we "need" in the draft this year?

cartel
04-26-2009, 06:28 PM
Not only that, will we unload Champ and when he wants a big new contract since we've drafted a couple of young corners? Also, would you unload Graham huge contract since we've drafted his replacement as well?

cutthemdown
04-26-2009, 06:34 PM
Not only that, will we unload Champ and when he wants a big new contract since we've drafted a couple of young corners? Also, would you unload Graham huge contract since we've drafted his replacement as well?

Mcdaniels IMO wants 2 big TE who both rotate or play together in the big redzone packages.

Hillis at FB, Moreno at TB, with 2 huge inline blocking TE in could be a pretty physical red zone and short yardage package.

I'm surprised more people aren't super excited about the offense this yr.

I agree though this could be Champs last yr in Denver. Especially when Mcdaniels shows his brother the door.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-26-2009, 06:36 PM
Yes, the Pats drafted all those DL because they know that the Broncos have already decided to target Wilfork a full year before he becomes a FA. McDaniels and Xanders know that there is nothing that can change over the next year that will alter his FA status.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 08:29 PM
If 2010 turns out to be an uncapped year, as it is now slated to be, then Wilfork isn't going anywhere. Why? Read this from nfl.com:

A general manager told me that the projections for players scheduled to be free agents -- if it were a capped year -- could be upwards of 170 fewer players if it is uncapped.

Uncapped years limit free agency

Teams will have three tags instead of one to restrict true veterans from being entirely free. Another general manager projects that this mechanism will lock up 30 additional players.

There could still be a few choice players left to test free agency and a number of solid players on bad teams will be looking to go to contending teams. A team such as the Patriots has always done a great job in free agency, getting very good veterans on reasonable deals because a player wants a chance at a Super Bowl ring. Well, there will be a "Final 8" rule in 2010.

For all practical purposes, free agency will not have any teeth in 2010 and close to 200 players hoping to hit a big pay day will have to wait at least a year and risk injury.

Killericon
04-26-2009, 08:31 PM
Well, the Pats do have a long history of letting their veteran players walk.

Of course, Wilfork is a beast, and this is a pipedream, but it'd sure be nice.

spdirty
04-26-2009, 08:37 PM
well if we got him it would make up for the 1st we lose next year. Doubt it would happen though since its something the FO would do that would actually finally make me happy.

summerdenver
04-26-2009, 08:55 PM
I would be surpised if NE let him go. He is young and too valuable a player for them. OTOH, champ probably won't be extended.

lex
04-26-2009, 08:59 PM
Well, the Pats do have a long history of letting their veteran players walk.

Of course, Wilfork is a beast, and this is a pipedream, but it'd sure be nice.

Yeah, it might not happen but the fact that they drafted 3 DTs, including Brace, makes you wonder.

Beantown Bronco
04-26-2009, 09:01 PM
Yeah, it might not happen but the fact that they drafted 3 DTs, including Brace, makes you wonder.

I think it speaks more to them closing the door on Seymour than anything. This will most likely be his last year in NE.

Wilfork isn't going anywhere.

boltaneer
04-26-2009, 09:19 PM
I gotta think Wilfork is going to be franchised at the very least.