PATRIOT64

If we won SB 41 would we have been as active and wild in FA as we are now?

I don't think we would have been as active or at least would have looked at things in a different light..I think we would have gone after a Donnie Edwards more so than a Donte Stallworth and Probably going after a CB like Nick Harper or Roderick Hood rather than a Kelley Washington although I think we were taking Welker no matter what and I think we would right now be pursuing Kevin Curtis as a mix in the WR position.

I think we would have still went wild bidding for Thomas so those 3 FA pickups (Thomas,Welker and K.Brady) I think were gonna happen..Stallworth,Welker and Washington probably not as much of a push for but definately Kyle because Graham was already a done deal there was no way he was returning to the Patriots,even if they offered bigger dollars than Denver.

I think the WR position in FA would have been less a factor and Defensive FA action more so if we had won the SB,Also think we would have used the rest of the leftover dollars with signing Asante for a multi deal and things would have been a bit different because I think with the exception of Brown likely retiring we would have been more likely to keep the duo of Gaffney and Caldwell as #1 and #2 if they were more of a deciding positive factor in the playoffs.

Having the rival Colts win the big game made the Patriots go bonkers in the FA waters,especially at WR-no doubt IMO,I think we need to make our WR core as good or better than the Colts if we are going to dethrone them at least once this year,and I think the team has done a good job at that - on paper at least,lets see them play as a TEAM first before going further.

Fencer

I don't think a different outcome in a couple of plays -- plus one more post-season game -- would have made much difference in the roster evaluations and strategies at all. Nor would the two weeks less of preparation for FA.

ChoWZa

I think the emphasis was put on the defense by the Patriots not winning the superbowl. Likely Thomas would not have been signed instead we probably would have tried to fill holes in the draft for LB and signed all the WR's much the same way and been focused on a repeat by bolstering our offense (franchise tag for samuel a given). The loss to the Colts exposed our LB's. The Pats had set a franchise record low for points against.

I believed Kraft when he said the Pats would spend to the cap.

Fencer

I think BB would have regarded Thomas as a major upgrade to grab even if the Pats had gone 19-0 the prior season.

ironwasp

Irrespective of winning the SB, the Pats would have finished the season with the same huge cap space and exactly the same issues confronting the team - an aging linebacking corps, contract situations for Graham and Samuel, threadbare receiving resources, falling output from Dillon.

Losing in the way the team did might have highlighted some of those issues in the cruellest and most painful of fashions, but winning another ring would not have changed any of those situations and I would have expected the team to approach FA in much the same fashion.

__________________

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

ChoWZa

Possibly. But they might have seen Bruschi/Vrabel/Seau as viable options still and figured to start working in LB's from the draft, but don't ge me wrong I think Thomas is huge, I've been on the Adalius bandwagon since the Ravens announced they were not going to tag him.

TomBradyWoot

They might have been MORE active if we won the Super Bowl. How many guys probably would have retired on top? Bruschi, Harrison, Brown, and Dillon are my guess.

__________________

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

4.16.2007

naclone

i don't get it.

Caldwell and Gaffney were money in the playoffs.

there is simply no way of getting around the fact that we gave up more points on defense in the last half of the championship game than we gave up in any entire game the whole season.

the WR position had zero bearing on us not making it to the super bowl.

so i'm not sure why there would be less emphasis on it if we won.

this team is doing what it always does. use all available resources to improve the team.

i don't think we'd be doing a thing different.

AndyJohnson

Why would the approach be different?
Isnt BB trying to field the best team for 2007? It seems you are suggesting that if we won the SB he'd be trying to field the 2nd best team?
We would have the same roster and cap space.
I just dont get how BBs opinions of players both on his roster and available would be different if we won 0 games 13 or 19.

tigerbait1220

one thing you're forgetting is that we still had close to 25 million to spend. i think we definetly would have signed thomas. the welker thing maybe not, but the contracts given to stallworth and washington arent that great. unless stallworth goes for 90-1,300-10, he wont be back next year and we only pay him like 4 million including bonuses. as for the other signings i think you could go either way.

__________________
"maybe she told him what his batting average was."
-Jim Rome- (in reaction to julio lugo slamming his wife's head on the hood of his car)