patfanken

Since we have nothing better to do than to wildly speculate about what the Pats will do this off season to improve the team; a discussion in the most recent cap thread got me to thinking.

It IS possible to re-sign Welker, Talib, Volmer, Edelman, etc for under $10MM COMBINED and still have money left over for additional signings. Of course the problem with that, is that it comes with a heavy cost down the road. For example. The Jets signed Holmes for a 5 year, $50MM contract. However it was backloaded so that his first year his cap cost was just $1.4MM, and his 2nd year just $3.6MM.

So I ask the question. If you were in charge, would you sign all the people you needed to make a dynamic superbowl run the next 2 years, and then have to blow the whole thing up and suffer through a complete rebuild. OR do we continue to function as we have been and "only" field a very good team that wins a lot of games and can compete for a superbowl, and perhaps win one if things break our way.

mayoclinic

The Patriots will not take the short term view, IMHO, and I don't think they should. The Jets thought they were close to "winning it all" - look where it got them. I personally think that it never makes sense to build a team that way.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

patfanken

I don't disagree, nor do I think the Pats would take the "immediate fix" approach. However the question wasn't what would the Pats do? The question is what would "we" do if "we" were in charge.

Do you think it would be worth a couple of Lombardis the next 2 years and then **** the bed for a couple of years, as opposed to spending the next 4 years as AFCE champions and just hope for the best in the playoffs?

Ivan

I don't buy the premise that they have to do it in such a way that they suck in 3 years but I do believe that what they should do is be really aggressive about making this team as dominant as possible for the remainder of Brady's career, and I believe they have set themselves up in such a way that they can do just that while staying competitive down the road. On offense they have a great QB, great young TE's, one of the best receivers to ever play the game, really good young tackles, and really good young RB's. They still need help at interior OL and at WR but that's it on offense, and that should be pretty easy to address in terms of need. Defensively they have one of if not the youngest defense in football, and while it is still a work in progress it has many of the pieces in place to develop into a really good defense in coming years. They can add to it in the draft and free agency and together with this offense create a team that can dominate the next few years and give them a great chance to add a couple more rings before Brady hangs them up, and imo that should be the priority.

The single most important component of any championship team is obviously the QB, and when Brady retires it is going to be a crapshoot unless they strike gold again and end up with an Andrew Luck, and I for one would much rather bet on Brady's chances at getting them more rings than on the QB who follows him. I would much rather see them go for it and suffer a couple of down years while sitting on another ring or 2 than squander the rest of Brady's career for the purpose of frugality and staying competitive after he is done. Championships matter more than simply being competitive so i want them to be smart but aggressive, and make the most out of the next 4 years. After that i would be fine with a couple of off years. And even if they didn't win more rings i would be much happier seeing them go for it than just staying the course.

PatsWickedPissah

Problems with the go for broke win now at future cap hell strategy
(1) First & foremost it's against Bobby Kraft's business philosophy for the Pats. Having years of suckatude will damage the brand. A no-no. All Pats associated revenues would dip. The backlash of the fair weather short attention span fan base, the largest segment, would not be good for business.

(2) Having paid the price, there's no guarantee you win anything. Bad ref calls, key player injuries, once in a career helmet catches, or the bounce of the not round ball shows that chaos rules.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

AndyJohnson

Are you sure about those numbers on Holmes?
If correct that means at best he got about a 4mill signing bonus, and ony 7.4mill in the fiorst 2 years and would have salaries totalling 42.6mill in the final 3. I don't think that is correct.
Even if it were, Welker, Talib, and Vollmer would never sign such a contract.

mayoclinic

I gave you my answer as clearly as I could: "I personally think it never makes sense to build a team that way". What more do you want?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

Ivan

Comparing the Jets situation and that of the Patriots is really pretty ridiculous. The Jets had a shaky team with a bad QB and thought they were something they weren't. the patriots have the GOAT and a great team that is a few pieces from total dominance, and will be in the final four the next couple of years even if they stand pat.

And ken's premise that it will be 2 years and then suck is also pretty ridiculous, it is not either/or even though it is a choice as to whether to be frugal and competitive or aggressive and go for it.


I think a serious discussion of these choices is warranted but setting up false premises for the discussion makes it difficult to have that discussion.

SacPete1

Totally agree with Mayo. A "Superbowl run" is a flawed strategy. Fielding a team that is consistently in the mix to challenge for the Superbowl is hard enough but the difference now more than ever between a conference champion and a playoff team is so slim.

Establish the cost structure that you feel is appropriate for that position on your team. Compare this to what you project the market to be for the same position and evaluate the degree of delta between the two to determine if your team value should be recomputed or accepted.

Do not let another team's market value determination (Jets with Holmes, Bills with Williams) determine or significantly influence your own.

I find it difficult to believe that Welker's value to another team is greater than the Pats and if someone chooses to break the bank for him (4 yrs, 40 mil), then thank you Wes for all you've done.

ctpatsfan77

Seeing, as we have, that it only takes one play to dramatically change a team's playoff hopes, I say no.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.