Question To Ponder

[Ring 6]

Looking at the Patriots success in the BB era, would they have been more or less successful under different circumstances, specifically, no cap and personell rules like in the 70s when you basically drafted a player and he was yours for life?

On one hand it would seem that once the team was built into a juggernaut it would have been easier to keep it together and stay dynastic under those rules.
On the other hand, the organization clearly has a better understanding of how to operate and succeed within the current rules than mostly any other.

Are we smarter, and therefore, would be more successful in a system that gives more reward for being smarter. (there was no parity in the 70s)
Or do we just have a system, approach and management team that understands THIS system better than the competition and may not under different rules?

 

[MetalBleachers]

The Pats always seem to adjust, although they've been off a year or so in the past few seasons. They got by without Ty Law for a year but haven't won since he left (although Asante provided a solid replacement). They failed to sign Deion and had no-one ready to replace him (albeit Deion breached his contract and will forever have my scorn).

With no salary cap, I have to figure that a few guys stick around and that the Pats have at least one more championship. They don't set records in 2007 but make the playoffs with Branch and maybe Welker.

When you consider that they're a couple of last-minute opposing drives away from unimaginable success, it's easy to say that they'd be better with a couple of personnel breaks here and there.

 

[maverick4]

I think Belichick would have dominated in any era, and in my opinion more so if he could keep his players. He is a phenomenal coach, and instead of expending a lot of energy coaching up rookies and retreads on a yearly basis, he could have maybe coached up 10 hall of famers instead.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

If you're talking about the businees of football, and the ability to adapt your approach within the business framework of the times, Kraft and BB together would be a winner in any era.

 

[signbabybrady]

It is a real interesting question and I am not sure where to go with it except to say that I think his ability to teach and breakdown football is as responsible for this dynasty as his ability to function with in this system. So I guess he may have done better.

 

[captadamnj]

BB learned the game of football in a non-salary cap era. I seriously doubt he was sitting around in 1980 saying to himself, "I know I'll be a great coach when the NFL gets a darn salary cap!"

There are many facets to being a great coach/organization. Personnel is just one of them. Salary cap/FA or not, you still have to game plan, deal with injuries, motivate, and finally, execute.

 

[mike_usagisan]

Looking at the Patriots success in the BB era, would they have been more or less successful under different circumstances, specifically, no cap and personell rules like in the 70s when you basically drafted a player and he was yours for life?

We're probably going to find out in a couple of years when the idiot owners decide to let the cap end.

 

[belichickaholic]

In 2007, he had what was essentially an allstar team, or at least an allstar offense. How'd that work out? Other teams handle the cap better than we do. What seperates Belichick is his coaching. He's just better than all the rest. It's as simple as that.

 

[Rob0729]

I think at least in theory they would have been more successful. Just the fact they could have kept guys like Malloy, Law, McGinest, Colvin, etc. rather than cut them due to cap issues, would have made this team stronger. I do agree that the Pats would be successful in any era though.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Interesting consideration, Andy. I think Belichick works best when he can both outcoach, and out smart, the opposition. So this era makes him shine.

But an equal question is what would happen if the roster were expanded to 56 or 60 active players? Is Belichick's late season winning, contingent on being deeper than other clubs by the end of a long, long, injury-depleting 16 game season? Would larger squads help him, or the opponents?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think the cap has a net effect of helping the Pats, since they manage it far, far better than most of the other teams in the league.

 

[MetalBleachers]

In 2007, he had what was essentially an allstar team, or at least an allstar offense. How'd that work out? Other teams handle the cap better than we do. What seperates Belichick is his coaching. He's just better than all the rest. It's as simple as that.

Did you know that, except for Daniel Graham, the Pats have all of their First Round draft picks since 2001? They've "lost" Ty Law, Asante Samuel and Deion Branch to free agency (although Branch was signed for another year). They have gained players like Colvin, Harrison, AD, Welker and Moss during this era.

I can see an argument for Indy and Pittsburgh handling the cap well, but who else does it "better than we do"?

 

[CopenhagenPatsfan]

In 2007, he had what was essentially an allstar team, or at least an allstar offense. How'd that work out? Other teams handle the cap better than we do. What seperates Belichick is his coaching. He's just better than all the rest. It's as simple as that.

2007
16-0 Regular Season
AFC Champions
1 Loss in the Super Bowl coming on an incredible fluke play.

Boy, I am glad we got rid of that dead weight Pioli, now if we could only get rid of that slacker Bill Belichick, he has no clue what he is doing

You are right about the coaching though, Bill Belichick is the best.

 

[BradyFTW!]

In 2007, he had what was essentially an allstar team, or at least an allstar offense. How'd that work out? Other teams handle the cap better than we do. What seperates Belichick is his coaching. He's just better than all the rest. It's as simple as that.

So in one sentence you say that the Pats put together what was 'essentially an allstar team' under the cap, then in the next sentence you say that other teams handle the cap better? That's a hell of a contradiction, champ.

 

[Wildo7]

If the Pats had an advantage in the specific framework of the salary cap, that was most likely a credit to Pioli. The fact that Belichick is most likely the the best coach of all time in terms of talent management, strategy and in game management makes him formidable in any era. And Kraft is the perfect owner in that he's a shrewd businessman, who knows just enough about football to relinquish the right amount of control to the people that know what they are doing. The beauty of the past decade has been Pioli's cap skill and talent assessment, Belichick's coaching and talent assessment and Kraft's smart approach to ownership all being able to function together seamlessly as a cohesive machine without ego or conflict. Throw into that equation whatever level of importance you think Ernie Adams has too.

None of us really know to what degree Pioli influenced talent assesment, free agent acquisition and the draft, but assuming he hasn't been an irreplaceable factor in those areas without a cap you'd basically negate whatever edge he gave us and maintain the level of superiority the Pats have enjoyed. The fact that he's said his greatest strength was working in concert with Belichick to understand his system and find whatever Belichick wanted within the framework, I think makes that a safe assumption. Where I think it may even give them an advantage would be Kraft's ability to grow the Pats as a business and spend money in smart ways. Judging by the fact that the Pats I believe are the 4th most valuable franchise in the world reassures that at the very least, the Pats wouldn't come up short in terms of spending.

And whoever says the Pats drafting has been anywhere near sub par compared to the rest of the league doesn't know what they're talking about IMO. The mantra of the Pats is team and system, if they can maintain good draft strategies and acquire the FAs they want to fit the system, I think that a league with no salary cap would be that Pats playground, especially considering that the losses of people like Mcguinest, Milloy, Ty Law, Deion Branch, Asante Samuel and co. could have theoretically been the difference between 3 SB rings and 5 or 6.

In short, a Belichick system that's free to acquire and keep the perfect players for that system would be better than say a Dan Snider roster full of pro bowlers without cohesion.

 

[jmt57]

With rules such as there were in the 70's, the major influence would not be the lack of a salary cap, but free agency. The net result would be that it would take longer to build a team, and it would be easier to keep it together once it was good. Also keep in mind drafts were 17 rounds long, so picking up a decent undrafted free agent was far more difficult then. The FO could only improve team through the draft or via trades.

 

[xmarkd400x]

I think it goes like this:

Brady was drafted. He would be ours forever. If you get to surround him with talent, and keep SB winning talent from leaving (like you could under a non-salary cap era) I think the Pats would be even better than they are now.

I think the Pats wouldn't have won in Brady's first year as a starter because the free agents wouldn't have been here, but I think they'd certainly have won a couple SuperBowls by now.