Ty Law Question - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

belichickaholic · 07-13-2006, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

If 10 Ints come because they threw at him a lot then why did all of our corner have less Intsd combined? I would assume all of our corners combined got thrown at more than Law alone.

Good point, you've got me stumped

But in my opinion, I think it's entirely possible that offenses did throw at him more than our CB's.

I'm guessing that the Jets front 7 was a little more intact than ours was. And therefore, offenses could just run the ball right up the middle on us giving our CB's less opportunities to hawk the ball.

Pats726 · 07-13-2006, 07:20 AM

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/15025442.htm

***Mike the Brit*** · 07-13-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pats726

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/15025442.htm

Thank you.

Reading this article brings it home why the Boston media are so resentful of the Patriots -- how easy it must be if you're a beat reporter and the GM of the team writes the story for you!

I think that we're just looking at the KC-Ty Law mating ritual:

"Of course, I love you, honey."

"Well, if you love me so much, why don't you give me as big a salary as all those other guys?"

"But, honey, can't you see I'm broke?"

"I don't care about that. If you don't want me, there are lots of other teams out there. The Patriots still love me, even if you don't ..."

Enough, already!

***PatsFanSince74*** · 07-13-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats60

I agree with you the money is not coming out of
my pocket.
With what they spent on Poole, Sparks, and both scotts we could have
spent it on ty

two points: one, I don't understand why your second point isn't more widely understood; the pats paid those guys what they would have paid Law; two, i think for Piolichick it comes down to not setting a precedent; they're not going to pay top price at any position, including QB, where a well-compensated TB still took less than he could have demanded on paper. if it comes down to "who blinks first" in negotiations for Law, then I don't think he ends up with the Pats. if it comes down to other things, like solidifying his stats for the HOF with another ring and living in NE, then I think we get him.

smg93 · 07-13-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by belichickaholic

Good point, you've got me stumped

But in my opinion, I think it's entirely possible that offenses did throw at him more than our CB's.

I'm guessing that the Jets front 7 was a little more intact than ours was. And therefore, offenses could just run the ball right up the middle on us giving our CB's less opportunities to hawk the ball.

Sorry, but that's really really stretching it. Like you said, he's made an excellent point that you can't counter. I can't believe you're still trying to defend a point that you have admitted is indefensible now. Do you really mean to say that its possible that QB's threw to Ty Law more than all of our CB's combined?????? With all due respect, that's pretty weak.

***AndyJohnson*** · 07-13-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smg93

Sorry, but that's really really stretching it. Like you said, he's made an excellent point that you can't counter. I can't believe you're still trying to defend a point that you have admitted is indefensible now. Do you really mean to say that its possible that QB's threw to Ty Law more than all of our CB's combined?????? With all due respect, that's pretty weak.

And the other part of the argument was the 4-12 Jets defense was better at the other 10 spots.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 07-13-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike the Brit

Thank you.

Reading this article brings it home why the Boston media are so resentful of the Patriots -- how easy it must be if you're a beat reporter and the GM of the team writes the story for you!

I think that we're just looking at the KC-Ty Law mating ritual:

"Of course, I love you, honey."

"Well, if you love me so much, why don't you give me as big a salary as all those other guys?"

"But, honey, can't you see I'm broke?"

"I don't care about that. If you don't want me, there are lots of other teams out there. The Patriots still love me, even if you don't ..."

Enough, already!

I think this is precisely where it is at though. Peterson says they can't get to a negotiating point with Poston and no one else can either. That is not quite the case though. I think we have an offer on the table that wasn't quite what the public posturing says Ty believes is his fair market, but it also wasn't insulting, and the Poston's are simply trying to best it.

Peterson has maybe $2-3M to work with where a Ty Law is concerned. That just isn't gonna cut it. The Chiefs were in a bit of cap trouble before the windfall, and had few salary only players like Warfield they could cut. They did what they could restructure wise before the CBA got done. They still have 6 players with cap hits of $6M+ including the CB they signed instead of Ty last season with an $8M 2006 cap hit. And Peterson is still a little chippy too because he did this dance with Ty last season in hopes he wouldn't have to pay the big bucks for Surtain and got used by the Poston's to up Ty's ante only. It would be tough for Pro Bowl Ty to now sign with a team where he is not nearly the highest paid CB on the team. Here that would not be a problem. Our entire defensive backfield roster barely totals $6M+.

I think it will be pretty easy to trump any offer KC actually does come up with if they can even afford to top what we likely already have on the table. I think we are also in a position to pencil him in as a safety in a longer term deal than anyone else will offer to retire as a Patriot. I think all of this was worked out months ago in the 4 hour meeting with BB where they didn't just chew the fat like two buddies - they cleared the air and set the stage. Belioli also understand the dynamics so they didn't need to posture or push. They reeled in the player and then told him to let the Poston's see if they could do better. I assume we left a few bucks aside to counter as well. The CBA windfall created more than much needed space for this team - it empowered them to be more flexible now and/or in the future.

They won't overpay for Ty any more than they will for any other player on this team regardless of excess cap space. But I don't think KC is in a position to even if they wanted to.

***AndyJohnson*** · 07-13-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanSince74

two points: one, I don't understand why your second point isn't more widely understood; the pats paid those guys what they would have paid Law; two, i think for Piolichick it comes down to not setting a precedent; they're not going to pay top price at any position, including QB, where a well-compensated TB still took less than he could have demanded on paper. if it comes down to "who blinks first" in negotiations for Law, then I don't think he ends up with the Pats. if it comes down to other things, like solidifying his stats for the HOF with another ring and living in NE, then I think we get him.

Thats the type of answer my original question was soliciting.
What I do not agree with is that BB and Pioli value 'winning the negotiation' over winning games and SBs. I tihnk they absolutley will blink first if they can afford it under the cap and believe we are a better team with Law.
I have no disagreement with the thinking that BB and Pioli guard every single cap dollar tightly, and they will walk away from players rather than blowing out the integrity of how they are buiilding the team. That is because there are other players to spend it on. Its a budget. If you have $150 to go to the grocery strore with and need to feed a family for a week, there are many things you would like to buy, but cannot because you must sacrifice something else. Many GMs handle this analogy by eating steak and lobster for a couple days then scrounging on spaghetti and butter until payday. BB and Pioli in this analogy would comparison shop, decide that in order to have 3 square meals every day that you can only have desert once or twice.
The analogy is different in the Law case. We have an extra bonus (more cap room) to spend. We can afford the luxury item. Of course you could save it for later, and thats where the analogy departs its effectiveness, because not using the $$ now means less chance of winning now, which is the first order of business.

Its hard to quantify, but if Law elevates the team significantly more than anyone else or combination of players available for the same cap room, and you have the room to sign him, we should, even if that means he 'wins the negotation' and we have to pay a bit more than we would have liked to.

Consider this, we have built a team through an approach that says we are demanding value. (By the way that comes hardly at all through contract negotiation and almost solely because we get more from players in their rookie contracts than anyone does) If you built a team on the philosophy you would only pay mediocre pay, require home town discounts, never pay full market value, you would have a poor to medicore team. What the Patriots have done is build a large part of the team on the 'frugal' approach. What do you do with the savings? You pay for very good players.

Thats the part thats gets missed here. The Pats under BB have been as top heavy as any team on the cap. The savings in some areas create one thing, the ability to spend more in others.

In the case of Law, I would rather add a 5mill (hypothetical #) player at a cost of 6mill if we can afford it than add no one.

***fgssand*** · 07-13-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

Thats the type of answer my original question was soliciting.
What I do not agree with is that BB and Pioli value 'winning the negotiation' over winning games and SBs. I tihnk they absolutley will blink first if they can afford it under the cap and believe we are a better team with Law.
I have no disagreement with the thinking that BB and Pioli guard every single cap dollar tightly, and they will walk away from players rather than blowing out the integrity of how they are buiilding the team. That is because there are other players to spend it on. Its a budget. If you have $150 to go to the grocery strore with and need to feed a family for a week, there are many things you would like to buy, but cannot because you must sacrifice something else. Many GMs handle this analogy by eating steak and lobster for a couple days then scrounging on spaghetti and butter until payday. BB and Pioli in this analogy would comparison shop, decide that in order to have 3 square meals every day that you can only have desert once or twice.
The analogy is different in the Law case. We have an extra bonus (more cap room) to spend. We can afford the luxury item. Of course you could save it for later, and thats where the analogy departs its effectiveness, because not using the $$ now means less chance of winning now, which is the first order of business.

Its hard to quantify, but if Law elevates the team significantly more than anyone else or combination of players available for the same cap room, and you have the room to sign him, we should, even if that means he 'wins the negotation' and we have to pay a bit more than we would have liked to.

Consider this, we have built a team through an approach that says we are demanding value. (By the way that comes hardly at all through contract negotiation and almost solely because we get more from players in their rookie contracts than anyone does) If you built a team on the philosophy you would only pay mediocre pay, require home town discounts, never pay full market value, you would have a poor to medicore team. What the Patriots have done is build a large part of the team on the 'frugal' approach. What do you do with the savings? You pay for very good players.

Thats the part thats gets missed here. The Pats under BB have been as top heavy as any team on the cap. The savings in some areas create one thing, the ability to spend more in others.

In the case of Law, I would rather add a 5mill (hypothetical #) player at a cost of 6mill if we can afford it than add no one.

Excellent analysis - wouldn't it be beter to classify the Patriots "being frugal" more so as a "share the wealth" philosophy whereby the middle class is the beneficiary??

Why does it make so much sense to us that Ty is better served finishing out here for a variety of reasons such as HOF, additional rings, endorsement potential (we all know how that worked for Adam), his family, his close buddies from this team etc.

He BELONGS here...doesn't he?? Or is it just me thinking like a fan??

***MoLewisrocks*** · 07-13-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

Thats the type of answer my original question was soliciting.
What I do not agree with is that BB and Pioli value 'winning the negotiation' over winning games and SBs. I tihnk they absolutley will blink first if they can afford it under the cap and believe we are a better team with Law.
I have no disagreement with the thinking that BB and Pioli guard every single cap dollar tightly, and they will walk away from players rather than blowing out the integrity of how they are buiilding the team. That is because there are other players to spend it on. Its a budget. If you have $150 to go to the grocery strore with and need to feed a family for a week, there are many things you would like to buy, but cannot because you must sacrifice something else. Many GMs handle this analogy by eating steak and lobster for a couple days then scrounging on spaghetti and butter until payday. BB and Pioli in this analogy would comparison shop, decide that in order to have 3 square meals every day that you can only have desert once or twice.
The analogy is different in the Law case. We have an extra bonus (more cap room) to spend. We can afford the luxury item. Of course you could save it for later, and thats where the analogy departs its effectiveness, because not using the $$ now means less chance of winning now, which is the first order of business.

Its hard to quantify, but if Law elevates the team significantly more than anyone else or combination of players available for the same cap room, and you have the room to sign him, we should, even if that means he 'wins the negotation' and we have to pay a bit more than we would have liked to.

Consider this, we have built a team through an approach that says we are demanding value. (By the way that comes hardly at all through contract negotiation and almost solely because we get more from players in their rookie contracts than anyone does) If you built a team on the philosophy you would only pay mediocre pay, require home town discounts, never pay full market value, you would have a poor to medicore team. What the Patriots have done is build a large part of the team on the 'frugal' approach. What do you do with the savings? You pay for very good players.

Thats the part thats gets missed here. The Pats under BB have been as top heavy as any team on the cap. The savings in some areas create one thing, the ability to spend more in others.

In the case of Law, I would rather add a 5mill (hypothetical #) player at a cost of 6mill if we can afford it than add no one.

I disagree about that top heavy comment. We are not, either by cap or by contract, a top heavy team. We were when they got here, and they had to cut their way out of that and have not collected the elite position players that put you in that position nor have they paid their own elite players elite salaries to remain with the exception of Seymour. Under Belioli's system you do not overpay for anyone, including Brady. Kraft said before his resigning that if he wanted Manning money or better they would have a real problem retaining him. His savings is spread across the roster to allow them to afford to pay fair market for others, not to overpay them. He allowed them to keep Seymour who, while he got the very top of his market for the short term, is still not overpaid. Overpaid would have been a 6-7 year $60M+ deal with upwards of $25M+ guaranteed. Seymour's cap will average $7.5M over the next 4 seasons.

In the highest cap season in Brady's contract, and one they could have lowered at the expense of future caps, it takes us 8 players to total what KC is spending on 6. They have 6 over 6, we have 1. I can't think of a single player we have "overpaid" in the last 6 seasons. Sure some ended up overpaid based on their performance after the fact but we didn't overpay for their perceived talent going into their deal - which is what you seem to think they should be willing to do for Ty just because we can. That's a philosophical dead end road Belioli is not going to start down. Because what do you do then when you need to sign a player or players at fair market next season and you can't afford to because you overpaid for someone last season because you were cap flush? The answer would then be you either cut someone else you also need to create new space or walk away.