Ty Law Question - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

Pats726 · 07-12-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I dont get the Traylor thing. He was CUT, it had nothing to do with $$.
BB decided that he did not want Traylor on his team.

Why would we have been better with him?
Personally, I thought he was horrible in 2004 anyway. He was not a good fit for our system. He would show up making some plays in the backfield, but the truth is that was because free lanced and didnt keep his gap discipline.
For every play in the backfield he made, there were 2 more where he freelanced his way out of position and hurt us.

I don't get that one either..I agree..I didn't see his loss last year as big...

belichickaholic · 07-12-2006, 02:13 PM

Ty with the Jets 4 wins!

5 Rings for Brady!! · 07-12-2006, 02:16 PM

It's too bad that Ty Law didn't do his part to help the Jets. I guess he was responsible for all their woes. I guess he should have taken them all the way, on his own.

Damn, Ty. You should have had at least 11 ints last year to help the Jets.

Pats726 · 07-12-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5 Rings for Brady!!

Ty Law with Jets: 10 interceptions

Patriots defense combined: 10 interceptions

Enough of this..if we would have had Law stuff.... you haven't answered the question of who you would have cut ON last year's team to equal the 10 mil plus that Ty would have gotten if he wasn't cut. It's great to say that the team would have been in the SB if Ty had stayed...that is all well and good..but it is hardly honest that you do NOT say a word about who from last year's team is NOT on the squad because of that 10 mil plus salary... It's great to add him on and say if he were here X would have happened..BUT maybe when you see who you would have had to take away from the squad, the Pats might not have even reached the playoffs. Law's salary was large...way large..and that was why he got cut.

5 Rings for Brady!! · 07-12-2006, 02:23 PM

Pats726: I already mentioned that Miguel, or anyone with all the cap numbers, might prove me wrong. I think I could probably find some way to keep his salary cap hit (different, I think, than his actual salary). I wasn't there and this is in hindsight. It is not like Bioli is always perfect 100%, and in hindsight they might have kept Ty instead of the scrubs they brought in. I understand that they didn't want to schuffle the team around, like you suggest, but normally they are able to micromanage the player's salaries fairly well.

Traylor would have filled in when the D-Line struggled and Wilfork was looking totally lost. We needed the depth for a handful of games. But if you don't agree, it doesn't much matter now because it's just my speculation. I just think Starks and Chad Brown and all those stiffs were not the real mistake, so much as letting a D-lineman go and, mainly, a #1 CB go. But this is in hindsight.

For the same reason I would have overpaid Law last year, I would be tempted to do so again this year. This is probably more important than me bringing up last year, but I feel that Law will make a difference now just like he would have then. I think what Law did with the Jets strengthens the reason we want him back.

belichickaholic · 07-12-2006, 02:28 PM

10 int's means they were THROWING AT HIM! They were throwing at him for a reason. How many pass interference penalties did he have last year? More than a 10 million dollar CB should have! Jets fans didn't even want him back at that price!

This has already been discussed ad nauseaum as you said. I'm just saying he isn't worth the big money any more that's all. In my opinion he'll be stifling the growth of the younger players.

CrazyDave · 07-12-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

If you mean the cost of Branch, whatever it is, outwieghs the potential damage of losing him I agree.

Heres another way to look at it.

Brady is the best QB in the NFL. Hypothetically, and if he wasnt who he is, being the best means he costs $2mill more than the 2nd best. But he wants 3 mill more.
Do you want Brady plus what you can use the 3mill on or the 2nd best QB.

IMO, there are players that you need to overpay. Not necessarily because they are a Brady, but also because of the gap to the replacement.

The discussion on trading Branch fits this. Lets say we could trade Branch for a #1 next year, or let him play out his contract and become a FA next year.

There is certainly value in getting the #1 pick, but what does that do to this year?
Is sacrificing this year worth it to gain things in the future? To me it is not.

I'm with you on this. Especially when you get most of your players for say, 15% discount. If you're saving money on 8 of 10 guys, logic says that with the remaining 2, you'll have to buck up. Somethings gotta give.
I also believe in "relative value". What is a player worth TO US.
Willie is a good example. Cleveland payed him because he's just worth more to them.

shakadave · 07-12-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

The point I was really driving at was the qualifying wanting Law back with 'at the right price'.

Wouldnt the right price be what we can afford on the cap? And given our cap situation we should be able to outbid other teams.

Put another way, if in a vacuum Laws value to the Pats is 5mill a year, and the market dictates it will take 8 mill to sign him, if we could afford 8mill under the cap, wouldn't 8mill be the right price?

I may not be saying this very clearly.

Andy, I understand your question and it's a good one. I think it boils down to your earlier assumption that if we don't sign Law, we'll have money that we're not using:

"Wouldn't the alternative be to just not spend the cap money?"

Answer: No.

One way or another, we will spend every penny up to the cap this year. If we don't sign Law (and maybe even if we do) we'll take our "extra" cap money and give some to Seymour this year (so as to create more cap room in upcoming years); re-up Branch and/or Graham and/or Koppen; sign the rookies, etc.

One point you hinted at is the idea that it might be better to use cap money this year rather than save it for the future. Why pay re-signing bonuses now to players we already have for 2006? There's a certain logic to that idea --- adding Ty Law vs. not having him around in 2006 is a big difference. But adding Law does come at a cost, because any cap money we don't use now on Seymour, Branch, Graham, Koppen will be money we have to come up with next year to the detriment of next year's roster.

To summarize, using the cap dollars now for non-Law purposes is a long-term investment in the 2007-2009 Patriots!

***gomezcat*** · 07-12-2006, 02:38 PM

I'm not sure that we need Ty Law that badly. Look at the young corners coming through: Samuel, Hobbs (whose physical style I particularly like), Gay and so on. They are prone to mistakes. However, given an extra year's coaching in this system and a fully fit front seven, I think we'll see a lot of improvement.
OK, Ty got the 10 picks last year, but how many times did he get burned? (It isn't a rhetorical question, as I don't know the answer). Edit: belichickaholic has made the same point. Is he slowing at all? Is his body what is was, pre- injury? How will his team mates react to him returning? If he brings veteran LEADERSHIP to the secondary, then perhaps he would be worth 2-3 Mill. Anything more than that seems a gamble, tying (excuse the pun) up a lot of money in someone who could hardly walk just over a year ago.

SunnyDenmark · 07-12-2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gomezcat

I'm not sure that we need Ty Law that badly. Look at the young corners coming through: Samuel, Hobbs (whose physical style I particularly like), Gay and so on. They are prone to mistakes. However, given an extra year's coaching in this system and a fully fit front seven, I think we'll see a lot of improvement.
OK, Ty got the 10 picks last year, but how many times did he get burned? (It isn't a rhetorical question, as I don't know the answer). Edit: belichickaholic has made the same point. Is he slowing at all? Is his body what is was, pre- injury? How will his team mates react to him returning? If he brings veteran LEADERSHIP to the secondary, then perhaps he would be worth 2-3 Mill. Anything more than that seems a gamble, tying (excuse the pun) up a lot of money in someone who could hardly walk just over a year ago.

I agree with several points above. My enhancements to those valid points:
1) the young guys are pretty decent to good but need reps (during game conditions) to improve. Give it to them unless we get more injuries in training camp and suddently become thin in DB's.
2) Veteran leadership ie. on the field (not locker room). If it looks like Rodney H. won't be back before mid-season, then restoring the 'Law' in the secondary would be very important. The secondary looked lost last year after RH went on IR. So RH's return date would be a big factor for me regarding Law.
3) I would be willing to spend far more than 2-3 Mill for Law but I disagree with the premise that the cap money (excess) won't be spent / or would be wasted somehow. They will find a way to spend it ensuring good financial health in the future years. Still I would pry open Kraft's wallet for about 6-7 Mill this year for Law - maybe also throw in a steak knife set as well (the knives would REALLY help him FEED his family).
4) Secondary concerns become more paramount when the team is facing top flight QB's this upcoming season. Looking at our schedule - I can't really say the opponent QB's put the fear of God in me. Farve, Loseman /Holcomb, Jets QB carousel, Chicagos' QB Grossman, Brad Johnson, etc. Most of the opposing QB's are not in the top 10 except for Culpepper - he is AWESOME and will give the Fins at least DOUBLE the wins this year. (snicker)

P.S. I bet you didn't know Culpepper has been to the Pro Bowl. (Do you smell Troll chum in the water). Oh, great -just what we need to screw up a good thread. Bomb Denmark, Bomb Denmark.