AndyJohnson

Looking at the Patriots success in the BB era, would they have been more or less successful under different circumstances, specifically, no cap and personell rules like in the 70s when you basically drafted a player and he was yours for life?

On one hand it would seem that once the team was built into a juggernaut it would have been easier to keep it together and stay dynastic under those rules.
On the other hand, the organization clearly has a better understanding of how to operate and succeed within the current rules than mostly any other.

Are we smarter, and therefore, would be more successful in a system that gives more reward for being smarter. (there was no parity in the 70s)
Or do we just have a system, approach and management team that understands THIS system better than the competition and may not under different rules?

MetalBleachers

The Pats always seem to adjust, although they've been off a year or so in the past few seasons. They got by without Ty Law for a year but haven't won since he left (although Asante provided a solid replacement). They failed to sign Deion and had no-one ready to replace him (albeit Deion breached his contract and will forever have my scorn).

With no salary cap, I have to figure that a few guys stick around and that the Pats have at least one more championship. They don't set records in 2007 but make the playoffs with Branch and maybe Welker.

When you consider that they're a couple of last-minute opposing drives away from unimaginable success, it's easy to say that they'd be better with a couple of personnel breaks here and there.

maverick4

I think Belichick would have dominated in any era, and in my opinion more so if he could keep his players. He is a phenomenal coach, and instead of expending a lot of energy coaching up rookies and retreads on a yearly basis, he could have maybe coached up 10 hall of famers instead.

Box_O_Rocks

If you're talking about the businees of football, and the ability to adapt your approach within the business framework of the times, Kraft and BB together would be a winner in any era.

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

signbabybrady

It is a real interesting question and I am not sure where to go with it except to say that I think his ability to teach and breakdown football is as responsible for this dynasty as his ability to function with in this system. So I guess he may have done better.

__________________

captadamnj

BB learned the game of football in a non-salary cap era. I seriously doubt he was sitting around in 1980 saying to himself, "I know I'll be a great coach when the NFL gets a darn salary cap!"

There are many facets to being a great coach/organization. Personnel is just one of them. Salary cap/FA or not, you still have to game plan, deal with injuries, motivate, and finally, execute.

__________________
"You know what I'm craving? A little perspective. That's it. I'd like some fresh, clear, well seasoned perspective." - Anton Ego

mike_usagisan

We're probably going to find out in a couple of years when the idiot owners decide to let the cap end.

belichickaholic

In 2007, he had what was essentially an allstar team, or at least an allstar offense. How'd that work out? Other teams handle the cap better than we do. What seperates Belichick is his coaching. He's just better than all the rest. It's as simple as that.

Rob0729

I think at least in theory they would have been more successful. Just the fact they could have kept guys like Malloy, Law, McGinest, Colvin, etc. rather than cut them due to cap issues, would have made this team stronger. I do agree that the Pats would be successful in any era though.

AzPatsFan

Interesting consideration, Andy. I think Belichick works best when he can both outcoach, and out smart, the opposition. So this era makes him shine.

But an equal question is what would happen if the roster were expanded to 56 or 60 active players? Is Belichick's late season winning, contingent on being deeper than other clubs by the end of a long, long, injury-depleting 16 game season? Would larger squads help him, or the opponents?