I am not a big fan of this move, at least nothing to get very excited about. Godchaux will be 31 years old this year and had a mediocre 51.6 grade from PFF (consistent with his last few years of play). He has a $4 million guaranteed salary plus another million in bonuses. By comparison other DI PFFs: Saunders 54.7, Boyd 51.9, Ridgeway 48.4, Shepherd 43.4, Bresee 36.5. It seems like we just added more mediocrity in an older form. Its good that he has been healthier than some of the others but he is also more costly. Lets face it, the Patriots have been one of the worst teams in the league the past few years, and we are penciling in their mediocre players as starters now.

This could have made more sense if he was coming into camp to compete for a roster spot, but his $4mil salary is guaranteed, so this was the patriots unloading a mediocre older player to save their salary cap and us buying high. Also, I see no reason we had to make this move before the draft. What if a great DT falls to us, and now we have basically committed $5 million to a mediocre veteran.

Overall, if Godchaux fill a specific role for a NT we need in Staley's defense, I guess he is a relatively cheap option. Still, its money down the tubes in what should be a rebuilding year on what will never be a great team in 2025. I hope this is the most expensive addition of our offseason, excluding our 1st round pick.

What if a great DT falls to us in the draft and he turns out to be a bust or average at best? Or what if one worth drafting in the spot we’re in in the draft doesnt carry the value to draft? Being Godchaux is older is more the reason you draft a DT…you draft for the future. That rookie DT will have a year or two to develop if needed,and if not and he’s a stud from day one, Godchaux can be rotational and depth,which we need because we had zero NTs on our roster before this move

What if a 31 year old declines, gets injured, or has trouble adjusting to a new system? Every player had downside. So I like players with upside to make up for it. I don't see the upside in an older mediocre player from a poor team who costs more than any DT on our current roster despite similar performance and gives us C- level output every week, when we should be rebuilding. Ultimately, this is an aging player who a bad team was looking to trade for the last month. He had been given permission to seek a trade in February, no team wanted him for a month, and ultimately we were the only bidder with a 2026 7th rounder. That should tell you a lot.

What if a 31 year old declines, gets injured, or has trouble adjusting to a new system? Every player had downside. So I like players with upside to make up for it. I don't see the upside in an older mediocre player from a poor team who costs more than any DT on our current roster despite similar performance and gives us C- level output every week, when we should be rebuilding. Ultimately, this is an aging player who a bad team was looking to trade for the last month. He had been given permission to seek a trade in February, no team wanted him for a month, and ultimately we were the only bidder with a 2026 7th rounder. That should tell you a lot.

I like it. He fits a 3-4 very well. He's probably our best 3-4 DT now.
He may be an average 3-4 DT but there isn't anyone better on our roster that fits a 3-4 like he does.

Worst case he provides good depth or becomes a quality rotational player with a young DT we acquire in the draft.

So does this push Breese outside or does he stay in a rotation?