Should the Pats shift to short-term thinking mode

[JMarr]

"Hines Ward and many others seem to recognize the fact that the Pats without Brady area completely different team - one not to be feared and one incapable of competing with the upper echelon teams. C'mon, have you forgotten that it's not just how Brady plays but his leadership and intelligence that have driven this machine. He's going to come back with a major chip on his shoulder, he's going to motivated as heck, and the Pats will resume their elite status. It's not that complicated. It's ALWAYS been mostly Brady.

What worries me the most is not whether in ten years the Pats will be mediocre but whether the front office will fail to realize that you probably have 3-4 more years with Tom when you could win 2 more SBs (yes, I believe that). Take advantage of that opportunity. If you have to trade for an elite CB and another linebacker do so."


**

Saw this on another blog and think it makes a very good point about the crossroads this franchise is at.

After this season, should the Pats abandon the "constantly reloading for the long term" philosophy that has defined the Belichick/Pioli era? Instead of accumulating draft picks, should they instead be thinking of trading major picks for immediate defensive impact players while Brady is still around?

.

 

[Rob0729]

Brady could be around and playing at a high level for another seven years. Why would you gamble the future for two more years especially with the free agency market means that you are gambling with second tier free agent talent getting paid at top tier prices?

Look at the Jets. They are a team on the rise yet their window is already closing. Favre is pushing 40. Thomas Jones is already 30 and RBs typically fall apart overnight within a year or two of hitting that 30 year wall (See Corey Dillon for example). Faneca will be 32 this week and has already slipped in talent from his Pittsburgh days. They are one of the few teams projected to be over the 2009 cap. They gambled it all to win now and they could have to be in rebuild mode as soon as next season and may not have a Championship to show for it. They could be in need for a starting QB and are close to losing their next year second round pick for Favre. Depending on what happens with Favre next offseason, the Jets could already fall back into mediocrity with only a one year window for a championship.

I don't see the Pats deriding from their strategy. They have loaded up to win in the short term with low risk moves (Moss and Dillon in one year deals), but they will not mortgage the future to do so.

 

[billdog3484]

2-3 years? maybe he will start to decline in 2-3 years, but ill take 80% of Brady over 90% of the rest of the QBs in the league. hes a winner, and thats somethat that cant be measured. i think we should continue doing what we have done, and hopefully in the next 7 years we can build so we are great for the next 20 years

 

[JMarr]

Brady could be around and playing at a high level for another seven years. Why would you gamble the future for two more years especially with the free agency market means that you are gambling with second tier free agent talent getting paid at top tier prices?

Look at the Jets. They are a team on the rise yet their window is already closing. Favre is pushing 40. Thomas Jones is already 30 and RBs typically fall apart overnight within a year or two of hitting that 30 year wall (See Corey Dillon for example). Faneca will be 32 this week and has already slipped in talent from his Pittsburgh days. They are one of the few teams projected to be over the 2009 cap. They gambled it all to win now and they could have to be in rebuild mode as soon as next season and may not have a Championship to show for it. They could be in need for a starting QB and are close to losing their next year second round pick for Favre. Depending on what happens with Favre next offseason, the Jets could already fall back into mediocrity with only a one year window for a championship.

I don't see the Pats deriding from their strategy. They have loaded up to win in the short term with low risk moves (Moss and Dillon in one year deals), but they will not mortgage the future to do so.

You're probably right, but I would argue that the Jets are a completely different animal from the Pats, regardless of the effects of the salary cap.

We have Brady--they have Farve. We have BB--they have...an inferior coach.

We have a unique situation with Brady/Belichick. And I seriously doubt that Brady has six or seven good years left in him. I'm hoping for three. Who knows what happens after that.

 

[Rob0729]

You're probably right, but I would argue that the Jets are a completely different animal from the Pats, regardless of the effects of the salary cap.

We have Brady--they have Farve. We have BB--they have...an inferior coach.

We have a unique situation with Brady/Belichick. And I seriously doubt that Brady has six or seven good years left in him. I'm hoping for three. Who knows what happens after that.

Why would you doubt he has six or seven years left in him? Six season from now, he will be 38. Elway was still winning Super Bowls at that age. Rich Gannon was the league MVP at age 37. Warren Moon made the Pro Bowl at age 42 and 40 and 39 and 38 and 37 and 36. Steve Young was an All Pro at age 37. Favre had one of the best years of his career last year at age 38.

 

[mgteich]

1) I see no reason to believe that Brady has only 2-3 years left. That basically presumes that he is on the way downhill and that we will not extend his contract.

2) I DO think that we should cconsider trading a couple of top picks (even 2 firsts) if we really could get an impact player that has 3-5 years of high quality time left. This goes even more so for Wilfork. We need to extend him. We could be in the position of Seymour going and having to pay top picks and money to replace him. We should always be on the hunt for a defensive back.

BOTTOM LINE
For me, the need on defense is there and has nothing to do with Brady. The offense is fine for 2009 and 2010. We will need a secure extend three guards, but that is not a terrible need. If there was a top defender available for a 1st, 2nd and a 3rd, I would make the deal in a heartbeat.

BTW, the player need to come from any particular position. He just needs to be able to fit into the 3-4 two gap. Personally, I expect Seymour to go, so I could see us bringing in a DE, a LB, a CB or a S. BTW, I don't think this is very likely.

 

[SoCal Pmen]

What that blog failed to point out is the Pats lost 2 of their best defenders in AT and Rodney. In addition the team failed to address the CB position in the off season. So the notion that the team is all about Brady is not accurate. Brady would not have made Moss or Gaffney drop those balls. Brady would not have prevented Slater from muffing a kick return. Brady could not prevent the Steelers from converting 3rd and forever.

 

[ausbacker]

I'd prefer the long term view. I'd like the Patriots to be in the mode to challenge for success every year, not just a golden window of opportunity and then fade like other great dynasties.

The post Brady years will be interesting, but filling the team with quality players to compliment a (hopefully) competent quarterback and move from there is all we can ask.

You must always plan for a rainy day. Forward thinking and planning ensures that when you are deep in a hole, you can drag yourself at out if somehow.

At the moment, putting aside injuries defensively we're in a hole, once which I expect the forward thinking and long term view of the front office will dig us out of.

 

[RayClay]

Constantly reloading? Like picking up 30 year old Adalius Thomas to add to an over 30 LB lineup? Looks like we'll have some young LBs coming up, but we've never completely built through the draft so the premise makes no sense.

I imagine they'll continue to draft and pick up vets as they see fit.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Long term is the way to go.