Deus Irae

The Patriots franchised Samuel. That's clearly "elite" money. Furthermore, the gaping hole left by Samuel's absence, and the subsequent machinations attempting to fill that hole, have combined to help doom 2 seasons. That doesn't demonstrate that BB made the right decision at all. It tends to show just the opposite.

I'm not one to lament the loss of Samuel as if Samuel was a top 3 CB, since I didn't consider him to be in the top of the class even when he was with the Patriots, but part of letting players go is finding suitable replacements. The utter failure there absolutely opens up the Samuel decisions to question.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

patfanken

I respectively disagree DI. I think these are 2 separate issues. The decision not to pay Samuel elite money LT is separate and exclusive to the failure to immediately fill his spot. The decision NOT to pay him and let him go to the Eagles was the RIGHT one. The FO's failure to find an adequate replacement is subject to debate. Clearly they failed in 2008, but I think Boddin filled the need quite adequately last season, don't you.

Deus Irae

I'll break down your paragraph into very small bits, it'll be easier to break down agreements vs. disagreements that way....

I agree to an extent. They are clearly separate issues, but they are also inevitably intertwined. I look to the Samuel issue in the same manner that I look to the Hobbs issue: moving on from the player would have been fine if the replacement had been adequate, but failing to supply an adequate replacement makes the decision to have moved on a mistake. Creating personnel holes when you don't need to is almost always going to be a mistake for a team contending for a title, in any of the major American sports.

The decision to let him go wasn't right or wrong on its own. Samuel was a quality cornerback who played well in the New England system, but he was asking to be overpaid. There's nothing wrong with 'overpaying' for a player now and then, as long as it's only now and then. Belichick understands this. I can understand Belichick's position on this, and I have never been one who thought Samuel was a top 5 corner at all, so I didn't hate the final decision at all. However, the smart move would have been to refuse Samuel's demand that he not be franchised again. Failing to do so was the mistake that took the train off the rails, and the wreck that followed should have surprised nobody.

No. Bodden filled the Hobbs role (RCB, which was a role that shouldn't have needed filling in the first place and was one of BB's many mistakes last offseason). The team needs two starting CBs. The Patriots are still hoping to find that second one: the one that replaces Samuel. Springs was supposed to be that player last year, but he didn't pan out. Now everyone's hoping that one of the four puppies can get the job done this year.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

PatsWickedPissah

In a nutshell that's been the Achilles heel of BB's strategy, the inability to backfill departing or retiring talent, even at the competent but journeyman level. His initial selections in the early 2000s were solid contributors. The majority of FAs since then, not so much. The successfull use of draft picks for Welker and Moss were exceptions to the later 2000s trend.

__________________
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

Triumph

HA HA

Well done Spiral.

Triumph

I liked Samuel, but I always considered him sort of a soft player.

I think youre spot on Ken. BB did not see the next Ty Law in Samuel and let him walk. IMO, NE had their eye on Revis, but the Jets moved up and grabbed him.

Deus Irae

BB let Law walk, too, so I don't see where "seeing" the next Law would be at all relevant.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

Triumph

Yes, Law walked when his skills were diminishing. BB wasnt going to overpay and give Law the money he wanted at that stage of his career.

At one time, Law was one of the best CBs in the game. Samuel will never be in that group.

Samuel is average.

Deus Irae

Samuel was a top 15 CB, so I'm not sure that's "average". But that's neither here nor there. The reality is that Samuel was not adequately replaced.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

wcda

Every time I read a thread where I read we should have pay/paid the man I wonder just where the money will come from? Who do we pay and who do we not pay. Can't pay them all what they want.