In the end, it should be about improving, not plugging holes

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

plugging holes = improvement

Absolutely. As I said orginally, I'm not againts that idea and I'm certainly not looking at this offseason as a fail if they don't sign a stud free agent. At the same time, I hope that's at least considered.

For example, if Mario Williams has an interest in joining the Pats, maybe be willing to sign for a little less than his max value, that's something that should strongly be considered. It's not simply that players like him don't come around very often, they also aren't always going to be interested in becoming a Patriot. I'd hate to think we could have brought in a player like him but decided against it to save room to sign a safety. (and considering the minimal amount of FAs available and in the draft, they might cost way more than theyre worth, similar to the Bodden situation)

That's my point. If we can plug all our holes and add depth, that's great. I just don't want it to be at the expense of even considering players like Williams, Colston, etc.

 

[Fencer]

I think it's a bogus distinction. There are few positions where the Pats are likely saying "We're set; there's little improvement possible." K/P/LS probably won't be touched, except for some token camp competition, but beyond those:

• QB is pretty set.
• TE is pretty set except for depth/#3.
• OT is pretty set except for depth.

and that's pretty much the complete list of position groups at which there's no serious consideration being given to an upgrade.

 

[Ring 6]

Absolutely. As I said orginally, I'm not againts that idea and I'm certainly not looking at this offseason as a fail if they don't sign a stud free agent. At the same time, I hope that's at least considered.

For example, if Mario Williams has an interest in joining the Pats, maybe be willing to sign for a little less than his max value, that's something that should strongly be considered. It's not simply that players like him don't come around very often, they also aren't always going to be interested in becoming a Patriot. I'd hate to think we could have brought in a player like him but decided against it to save room to sign a safety. (and considering the minimal amount of FAs available and in the draft, they might cost way more than theyre worth, similar to the Bodden situation)

That's my point. If we can plug all our holes and add depth, that's great. I just don't want it to be at the expense of even considering players like Williams, Colston, etc.

It works both ways. If you overspend on one player and it inhibits filling the existing and developing holes, that isn't a real good plan, as history has proven.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

It works both ways. If you overspend on one player and it inhibits filling the existing and developing holes, that isn't a real good plan, as history has proven.

The real questions is can we find in this offseason defensive acquisitions that are not high $$ players that are better than what we have now? I sure hope so otherwise we might not have a choice but to go after a high profile player like Williams.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think it's a bogus distinction. There are few positions where the Pats are likely saying "We're set; there's little improvement possible." K/P/LS probably won't be touched, except for some token camp competition, but beyond those:

• QB is pretty set.
• TE is pretty set except for depth/#3.
• OT is pretty set except for depth.

and that's pretty much the complete list of position groups at which there's no serious consideration being given to an upgrade.

It's not a bogus distinction. It's a different mindset. You're coming at it from "They're only 'set' at....". Those talking about plug ins are coming at it from "They're really in trouble at....".


Are the Patriots better served by getting

S (i.e. Griffin)
DE (i.e. Carter)
OLB (i.e. Lawson)
DE/DT (i.e. Smith)


Or just getting Mario Williams? That's the sort of the question we're looking at here.

 

[BlueThunder]

I'll take improving 4 positions/depth over signing one super star every time....

 

[NEboiTB]

For anyone that thinks breaking the bank to sign superstar free agents and neglecting a teams true needs is a good idea, look at the Washington Redskins. That team has been a joke for a long time because of moves for Albert Haynesworth, Donovan McNabb and Adam Archuleta.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

It works both ways. If you overspend on one player and it inhibits filling the existing and developing holes, that isn't a real good plan, as history has proven.

I understand but couldn't you say the same thing as a reason not to re-sign Wes Welker, or if we have needs going into 2014, a reason not to re-sign Rob Gronkowski? Doesn't the overspending of those two players inhibit filling existing and developing holes? What makes a player like Mario or Vincent or Marcus Colston any different?

Clearly we need to bring Welker back and I hope beyond all hope we can extend Gronk before we have to. Again, those guys, just like Brady, Mankins and Big Vince will take up a lot of cap space to bring back. What is the cutoff for the overspending on key players?

I know you've debated that bringing in a high priced free agent has never won a team a Super Bowl. Unless we're signing one of these elite players to a one year contract, it's not boom or bust in year 1. Brees may not have won a Super Bowl in 2006, the year they signed him, but they certainly don't win in 2009 if not for having him. Also, I'm sure if a study was done, I'd expect that most playoff teams over the last decade had far less cap space overall going into the following season than the teams at the bottom of the league. In most cases, the teams that can sign these elite free agents are the teams not good enough to win that year anyway.

I'll say it again, this isn't my "We must do it this way" approach to the offseason. I would love to see us add a handful quality players for an upgrade in overall talent in depth. I simply won't call it a mistake if we use a lot of our money on a guy like Williams, Colston, Jackson, etc.

 

[Snake Eyes]

It works both ways. If you overspend on one player and it inhibits filling the existing and developing holes, that isn't a real good plan, as history has proven.

Isn't overspending, by default, paying more for a player than their production is worth? Just because we sign Mario Williams doesnt automatically mean we'd be overspending.

 

[Ring 6]

Isn't overspending, by default, paying more for a player than their production is worth? Just because we sign Mario Williams doesnt automatically mean we'd be overspending.

No it doesnt, but it stands to reason that the players teams are fighting over and outbidding are the ones that get overpaid.
It is also a reality that the higher paid a player is the more likely he is to be overpaid in the event of an injury or decline in performance.

 

[Stilla]

Look at the 2 teams in the super bowl.


NE>>

More than one-third of the Patriots roster was undrafted. The Patriots also have eleven more players that were taken in the fifth round or later in the draft. Less than half of the team was drafted in the first four rounds. 12 Patriots were signed “off the street” or during training camp.

Belichick says he looks for undrafted players that are dependable and work hard. That sounds obvious, but it’s clear the Patriots genuinely value these skills more than raw talent. Their running back position — led by two undrafted players BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead — is a great example of the Patriots finding diamonds in the rough and knowing how to use them.

Giants

Meanwhile, Plaxico Burress signed with the New York Jets, Steve Smith signed with the Philadelphia Eagles and Kevin Boss signed with the Oakland Raiders. The Giants got younger along the offensive line, but that came at the expense of veteran stalwarts Shaun O'Hara and Rich Seubert, who were released.

Osi Umenyiora was disgruntled. He wanted a new contract. The Giants weren't going to give him one, though.

Fan and media outrage ensued. What are they thinking? Are they serious? They miss the playoffs again and this is what they do? Or rather, don't do? C'mon man!

Didn't matter. GM Jerry Reese and his staff knew something everyone else didn't. In their minds, their roster was already solid, laden with homegrown talent that was developed within the organization. It was just a matter of players stepping up. And they did.

Fourteen players ended up on season-ending injured reserve. But as a team, the Giants persevered, ripping off five straight victories following a 7-7 start to reach Super Bowl XLVI.

Its the job of coaching to make the team a contender, when coaching is successful, players end up becoming stars who want big contracts.

Well, nothing lasts forever, and it sounds as if Cruz is anxious to shed the “underpaid’’ label attached to his name.

“I think I was paid, you know, relative to where I came in this year and, you know, I came in as a free agent so that’s the salary I was on, so I don’t feel like I was underpaid,” Cruz said on Pro Football Talk Live. “I mean, I feel like after my performance this year, you know, I feel like I deserve to be paid more money at this point. But that’s something I’ll let my agents and those people take care of and I’ll just go out there and play the game.”

Cruz is scheduled to make $490,000 next season. After catching a team-high 82 passes for a franchise-record 1,536 yards and a team-high nine touchdowns, Cruz was named winner of the Vizio Top Value Performer Award, given to the player who accomplishes the most while making the least money.

Top performing players deserve a % of the cap. A player will always claim they deserve top pay, but lets not forget, there are thousands of studs out there who will do the same job for less cash, like Cruz.

 

[Ring 6]

I understand but couldn't you say the same thing as a reason not to re-sign Wes Welker, or if we have needs going into 2014, a reason not to re-sign Rob Gronkowski? Doesn't the overspending of those two players inhibit filling existing and developing holes? What makes a player like Mario or Vincent or Marcus Colston any different?

Absolutely. Its just a fact, not the conclusion of the discussion. Spending heavily on any one player is risky. You have to balance the risk vs the reward. The comment was stating we shouldn't fill holes at the expense of not getting a big contract guy, and I was pointing out the opposite is also true.

Clearly we need to bring Welker back and I hope beyond all hope we can extend Gronk before we have to. Again, those guys, just like Brady, Mankins and Big Vince will take up a lot of cap space to bring back. What is the cutoff for the overspending on key players?

That's part of the decision making process. Again, I'm not saying no high priced players have value, but the opposite is not true either, ie that only high priced players have value and they should be signed at the expense of the quality you lose across other areas of the roster.

I know you've debated that bringing in a high priced free agent has never won a team a Super Bowl. Unless we're signing one of these elite players to a one year contract, it's not boom or bust in year 1. Brees may not have won a Super Bowl in 2006, the year they signed him, but they certainly don't win in 2009 if not for having him. Also, I'm sure if a study was done, I'd expect that most playoff teams over the last decade had far less cap space overall going into the following season than the teams at the bottom of the league. In most cases, the teams that can sign these elite free agents are the teams not good enough to win that year anyway.

The fact that it hasn't worked isn't proof it won't, there is just a lot of evidence that the popular belief that signing the most expensive FAs on the market is the best way to improve a team.

I'll say it again, this isn't my "We must do it this way" approach to the offseason. I would love to see us add a handful quality players for an upgrade in overall talent in depth. I simply won't call it a mistake if we use a lot of our money on a guy like Williams, Colston, Jackson, etc.

Once agian, my comment was that in addition to your concern that spreading the money around is done at the expense of signing a top guy, signing a top guy would also be done at the expense of fixing other issues.

 

[Snake Eyes]

No it doesnt, but it stands to reason that the players teams are fighting over and outbidding are the ones that get overpaid.
It is also a reality that the higher paid a player is the more likely he is to be overpaid in the event of an injury or decline in performance.

Why can't the same be said for making TFB the highest paid player in the league? Other teams would surely have paid what Kraft paid Brady, probably even more if they could. Paying elite players elite money is a risk, just as is not getting talent because you dont want to pay them.

 

[tobias funke]

Why does it matter what the fans see as a 'glaring concern'?

Last year we went into the season thinking "we have a really good secondary" and "our pass rush is the worst". Is that how we all felt after 3 weeks? 6? 9?

I'm not saying fans have no clue... but the fact of the matter is we dont know what the holes are going to be until the games start and starters get injured.

 

[Ring 6]

The real questions is can we find in this offseason defensive acquisitions that are not high $$ players that are better than what we have now? I sure hope so otherwise we might not have a choice but to go after a high profile player like Williams.

There are going to be a record number of FAs.
Are you really saying there won't be better players than
Brandon Deaderick
Kyle Love
Nobody (our current 43DE/34OLB starter)
Nobody (all of our sub package pass rushers)
Kyle Arrington
James Ihedigbo
Not to mention depth at all positions?

 

[Ring 6]

Why can't the same be said for making TFB the highest paid player in the league? Other teams would surely have paid what Kraft paid Brady, probably even more if they could. Paying elite players elite money is a risk, just as is not getting talent because you dont want to pay them.

The same can be said. I don't know why you are repeating what I say and acting like you disagree with me.

 

[supafly]

Why does it matter what the fans see as a 'glaring concern'?

Last year we went into the season thinking "we have a really good secondary" and "our pass rush is the worst". Is that how we all felt after 3 weeks? 6? 9?

I'm not saying fans have no clue... but the fact of the matter is we dont know what the holes are going to be until the games start and starters get injured.

A very fair comment that makes a lot of sense. With depth in many positions though, we should be able to withstand the usual injuries that come with the territory.

In the meantime, it's a long way to September--so this is likely the only thing we'll all talk about in the off season.

Overall, I agree with what you're saying though. I think it's about getting that depth back, and shoring up some holes.