Belichick is rebuilding for 2012

[mgteich]

1) We are heavy division favorties, as expected.
2) We are not Super Bowl favorites as we were before we traded Seymour in order to potentially better the 2012-2015 teams (giving the rook a year to develop).
3) The defense has been completely rebuilt in the last couple of years except for Warren, Wilfork and Thomas. We'll see about Wilfork and Thomas in the offseason.
4) Belichick doesn't want any top coordinators in the coaching staff.
=====================================================

The goal is to be competitive for the Super Bowl each year. If only the goal were to win in 2009.

 

[BelichickFan]

I'm not sure what the plan is other than to be competitive indefinitely. I'm good with being competitive indefinitely, of course, and 2012-2014 or so should be good with the picks we have upcoming. But that misses the Moss window, probably the Wilfork window, so the gains will be evened out by the losses.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm not sure what the plan is other than to be competitive indefinitely. I'm good with being competitive indefinitely, of course, and 2012-2014 or so should be good with the picks we have upcoming. But that misses the Moss window, probably the Wilfork window, so the gains will be evened out by the losses.

But that's the point: once you start thinking in terms of windows, that's a recipe to the sort of stupidity that has the Washington Redskins, among others, mired in mediocrity.

 

[wilfork is beastin']

Who cares if we aren't favorites to win the Superbowl? This isn't the BCS. As long as the team makes the playoffs, which it most likely will, no one should write the Patriots off.

 

[maverick4]

What evidence/argument can you provide that he is rebuilding for that specific year?


I'm pretty sure he's going for it every single year, without sacrificing the future.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

But that's the point: once you start thinking in terms of windows, that's a recipe to the sort of stupidity that has the Washington Redskins, among others, mired in mediocrity.

Exactly. They have a system here that puts players in a position to win. It has served them and us well although that's lost on the kneejerk contingent that insists any year we don't win it all reeks of mediocrity by design born of arrogance...

We don't always have all the right players in synch at the same time. Injuries happen. Age catches up. Youngsters experience learning curves. Still, if you win double digit games in this league year in and year out, your window is always open. How many teams can make that claim?? Indy, Pittsburgh, us...

The window won't begin to close here until Brady and Belichick are gone. We won before Moss arrived and will win after he's gone. Would be nice to win while he's here but that isn't or shouldn't be anyone's goal but his. One of Bill's goals that Scott used to talk about was building an organization with windows that would survive each of them as individuals. It required having the courage of your convictions, something fans here have little of.

 

[BionicPatriot]

Right. Just like how he was building for 2006, loaded up for 2007, stacked for 08, than he was gonna bring it home in 09...Wait.

How many years are we going to hear this? I honestly thought you were kidding, but I can't believe people still believe that. So does that mean the Patriots will continue to be the sissies of the big teams for 3 more years?

I feel ya guys on not thinking about windows. But you're not going to replace Brady, no way no how. Not right after, no team is that lucky. The time to win is NOW with our 32 year old. Brady could be another hit away from being done, he's getting older, etc. To worry about years from now instead of the present would be foolish, and it's just an excuse. The fact is this team can't build a champion anymore.

Remember when people questioned BB using BP's players? Well, I'll say this. Outside of maybe Mayo for Bruschi, BB has absolutely stunk at finding their replacements. There's a reason this D has been soft since 2005. BB just doesn't have the horses anymore, and worse yet is incapable of finding them apparently.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm not sure what the plan is other than to be competitive indefinitely. I'm good with being competitive indefinitely, of course, and 2012-2014 or so should be good with the picks we have upcoming. But that misses the Moss window, probably the Wilfork window, so the gains will be evened out by the losses.

It's nice to be competitive indefinitely. But being a 2nd tier contender indefinitely wouldn't be worth it.

 

[BelichickFan]

It's nice to be competitive indefinitely. But being a 2nd tier contender indefinitely wouldn't be worth it.

Yeah, I didn't mean to sound as negative as I did - many teams have been competitive but not overly impressive heading into the playoffs and won the SB, there's a lot to say for having a shot every year.

However with Brady having a window of 5-6 years and Moss for 1-2 right now (signed through 2010 and WR obviously slow down faster than QB), it would be tempting to have loaded up for this year and next to give another ring our truly best shot.

Regarding Wilfork, if we don't sign him we should be able to Franchise and Trade him for a great draft pick - assuming we didn't quietly agree not to Franchise him.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Yeah, I didn't mean to sound as negative as I did - many teams have been competitive but not overly impressive heading into the playoffs and won the SB, there's a lot to say for having a shot every year.

However with Brady having a window of 5-6 years and Moss for 1-2 right now (signed through 2010 and WR obviously slow down faster than QB), it would be tempting to have loaded up for this year and next to give another ring our truly best shot.

Regarding Wilfork, if we don't sign him we should be able to Franchise and Trade him for a great draft pick - assuming we didn't quietly agree not to Franchise him.

Agreeing not to franchise a player is something that can only officially happen with a contract (re)negotiation. If they had done that, we'd probably have heard by now.

 

[BelichickFan]

Agreeing not to franchise a player is something that can only officially happen with a contract (re)negotiation. If they had done that, we'd probably have heard by now.

That's been my one small fear about Wilfork playing with no holdout this year. Very unlikely but you never know.

Short of that, we should be able to get no less that a #1 for him although I'd prefer to sign him long term.

 

[b72s]

You win while you can

Brady will be that much older.

Maybe a CBA consideration but that does not justify it

Why does Belicheck NOT want seasoned coordinators????????

Coaching UP is what this team needs at all levels and add in some players over the next few years

 

[TruthSeeker]

It's nice to be competitive indefinitely. But being a 2nd tier contender indefinitely wouldn't be worth it.

Somehow I don't think that 2007 was a "2nd tier contender".

If you're thinking after 2007, then book is still open.

 

[chris66]

Sean Payton gave up a half million of his own salary so the Saints could hire Greg Williams this year.

Bottom line is good coordinators cost 2 mil/year now. kraft needs to open up the purse. hell he is making close to 1000 million in profits. He can afford a couple more.

 

[olschool]

Re: You win while you can

Brady will be that much older.

Maybe a CBA consideration but that does not justify it

Why does Belicheck NOT want seasoned coordinators????????

Coaching UP is what this team needs at all levels and add in some players over the next few years

It looks like BB only wants coordinators that he has trained. I think he's really bitten off more than he can chew. By rights, it should be his coordinator at the defensive bench with the whiteboard, while BB concentrates on the game.

As far as Wilfork goes, BB will never overpay anyone, especially a player that can't play every down, no matter how good he is when he does play.

 

[Deus Irae]

Exactly. They have a system here that puts players in a position to win. It has served them and us well although that's lost on the kneejerk contingent that insists any year we don't win it all reeks of mediocrity by design born of arrogance...

We don't always have all the right players in synch at the same time. Injuries happen. Age catches up. Youngsters experience learning curves. Still, if you win double digit games in this league year in and year out, your window is always open. How many teams can make that claim?? Indy, Pittsburgh, us...

The window won't begin to close here until Brady and Belichick are gone. We won before Moss arrived and will win after he's gone. Would be nice to win while he's here but that isn't or shouldn't be anyone's goal but his. One of Bill's goals that Scott used to talk about was building an organization with windows that would survive each of them as individuals. It required having the courage of your convictions, something fans here have little of.

The team did have the right players, and Belichick traded them away, needlessly. The team already had plenty of picks in the draft, and it didn't need the one it got for Seymour in order to maintain a competitive advantage. In fact, those who are singing the "need the picks for the future" were singing a very different tune when Belichick pissed away a 3rd and a 5th to get Burgess. Those two deals with the Raiders have turned out to be:

Burgess
2011 first round draft pick

for

Seymour
2010 3rd round draft pick
2010 5th round draft pick
Loss of any Seymour compensation moving forward

Couple those moves with the trading of Hobbs and Vrabel, and one can see that the system actually put the defense in a position to fail this season, in a year when the QB was returning from a major injury. It's not knee jerk to point this out and question it. It's what every fan should be doing, because the moves were mistakes, either in general or in compensation.

As for the window, it's been slowly closing since 2004, as the players who got the team to the Super Bowls have been moving on, and Brady has gotten older. NFL history has shown that teams don't compete consistently without top quality quarterbacks.

 

[BelichickFan]

Those two deals with the Raiders have turned out to be:

Burgess
2011 first round draft pick

for

Seymour
2010 3rd round draft pick
2010 5th round draft pick
Loss of any Seymour compensation moving forward and loss of his services in the present

You listed the loss of Seymour in the present twice. You cant do that. If you want to add in a late 2011 #3 as a comp pick, that's fair. But with him and Wilfork both UFA, one would be gone for that most likely.

 

[JackBauer]

The team did have the right players, and Belichick traded them away, needlessly. The team already had plenty of picks in the draft, and it didn't need the one it got for Seymour in order to maintain a competitive advantage. In fact, those who are singing the "need the picks for the future" were singing a very different tune when Belichick pissed away a 3rd and a 5th to get Burgess. Those two deals with the Raiders have turned out to be:

Burgess
2011 first round draft pick

for

Seymour
2010 3rd round draft pick
2010 5th round draft pick
Loss of any Seymour compensation moving forward and loss of his services in the present

Couple those moves with the trading of Hobbs and Vrabel, and one can see that the system actually put the defense in a position to fail this season, in a year when the QB was returning from a major injury. It's not knee jerk to point this out and question it. It's what every fan should be doing, because the moves were mistakes, either in general or in compensation.

As for the window, it's been slowly closing since 2004, as the players who got the team to the Super Bowls have been moving on, and Brady has gotten older. NFL history has shown that teams don't compete consistently without top quality quarterbacks.

I don't like the Seymour trade. I haven't seen Vrabel playing this year for KC, but I can't imagine he'd be any less useful than Jarvis Green and his salary.

Ellis Hobbs... I suppose would be valuable more for his kick returns than his presence in the secondary.

 

[Deus Irae]

You listed the loss of Seymour in the present twice. You cant do that. If you want to add in a late 2011 #3 as a comp pick, that's fair. But with him and Wilfork both UFA, one would be gone for that most likely.

I'll edit the services part, because it's a redundancy (thanks for picking that up), but I didn't quantify future services/compensation because I didn't think it would be fair to automatically assume that 3rd round pick. However, regarding the UFA, the team could have franchised Seymour and paid Wilfork an appropriate salary, and kept both players for at least the 2010 season, because there would be no cap issue. That's the advantage the 'no cap' season has built in for teams trying to keep players.

 

[The Dynasty]

I'll edit the services part, because it's a redundancy (thanks for picking that up), but I didn't quantify future services/compensation because I didn't think it would be fair to automatically assume that 3rd round pick. However, regarding the UFA, the team could have franchised Seymour and paid Wilfork an appropriate salary, and kept both players for at least the 2010 season, because there would be no cap issue. That's the advantage the 'no cap' season has built in for teams trying to keep players.

In the end that Pats would not be able to resign both Seymour and Wilfork. Who would you rather have? Wilfork no questions asked.

Instead of just watching him go sign with another team and getting nothing for him, the Pats got rid of him a year early and got something for him. Could we have used him this year? Sure. But you need to focus on upcoming years as well