Report: Pats sign DT Tommy Kelly

Sicilian said:

Fair enough. To be honest though, neither strategy seems to have worked for any team in the league consistently. It seems the one thing every Super Bowl winning team has in common is two or three consecutive years of good drafting (and of course great QB play as a given). I think when you draft well, which free agent strategy you prefer becomes almost irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I think your draft has to be your core. The Patriots won SBs, though, because they were able to pluck quality players in from a still-developing FA market system. Teams aren't letting Vrabel types get away anymore, and that's hurt the Patriots quite a bit, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

Deus Irae said:

Having dealt with Nordstroms customer service and quality vs. Walmart customer service and quality, I can tell you that the Nordstroms purchase is probably the better deal in the long run.

Click to expand...

But acquiring a free agent isn't like shopping at either place. Many times when you acquire a top tier free agent, you get Walmart customer service and quality at a Nordstrom's price. Many times you get a lower tier free agent, you get Nordstrom's customer service and quality at a Walmart price.

Unlike your shopping analogy, the quality of the product in NFL free agency is not as constant and guaranteed based on what you pay as you get in the retail world.

Deus Irae said:

Having dealt with Nordstroms customer service and quality vs. Walmart customer service and quality, I can tell you that the Nordstroms purchase is probably the better deal in the long run.

Click to expand...

That depends a lot of times what you're buying. You don't go Nordstroms for something you only intend to use for a short period of time you grab something cheap.

Deus Irae said:

I think your draft has to be your core. The Patriots won SBs, though, because they were able to pluck quality players in from a still-developing FA market system. Teams aren't letting Vrabel types get away anymore, and that's hurt the Patriots quite a bit, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

Click to expand...

You are right that the draft should be the core of your recruitment strategy long term, especially in the era of the rookie salary cap. HOWEVER the FA is radically changing because of it. Fewer and fewer teams are less likely to pay inflated "market" prices for UFA's the last few years. How can you, when the GREAT majority of those contracts ever end up being of worth it.

I don't think there were 5 new contracts that people could view as being "good deals" for the players.(and that includes Kyle Arrington's deal) Most deals ended up with the general comment being, "wow, that was less than I expected"

Even now there are just so many good solid pros that are out looking for work. PFT put out an "all unemployed team" and it wasn't half bad. It would be an old team, but full of quality NFL starters who USED to earn a lot of money. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't improve your team at the right price.

BTW- I think one of the reasons the Pats have had more problems with defensive FA's is the proliferation of the 3-4 defense around the league. When the Pats were starting their superbowl run, only 3 teams were using a 3-4 as a base, ,so there were more players with the specific skill set that BB was looking for available both in the draft and in FA. As more and more teams started to go to the 3-4 that player group has dried up somewhat. More competition for NT's and 3-4 two gap DE's. (which IMO is one of the reasons BB has gone to the 4-3. He simply didn't have the depth to run a true 2gap 3-4 at this time.

As for the short draft this season, even though its likely to net only 2 rookie keepers, the Pats can afford this "year off" from the draft. Their roster is young and talented enough over all to take a ONE year hit. IMHO more and more FA will provide a lot of low risk, low pay, solid players into the future that will mitigate any draft mistakes.

Deus Irae said:

When you're flush with cash, keeping your own players is what you're supposed to do, so keeping them doesn't make up for anything.

Click to expand...

I think that's overly simplistic, what matters is the big picture and keeping your best players is a part of that, and when you look at what happened to the Ravens this offseason i would argue that it's a critical part of maintaining your team, and not just standard fare. And as much as i wanted them to make moves for impact players I am still not seeing where they could have gone in this market without overpaying grotesquely, as the Dolphins did, or bringing in guys just to bring them in, which is what I think Avril would have been. I love Ed Reed but felt like they were between a rock and a hard place because McCourty is not a strong safety and I don't think moving him back to CB was a good option, thus the move with Wilson who actually fits their needs more as they really needed a hammer on early downs and a guy who might be able to side to a hybrid LB role and cover LB's. they need pass rushers but I don't think Dumervil is a fit here, and Kruger is an overpaid Ninkovich imo, he's better, but not much and at a much higher cost. The OL market didn't make much sense for them nor did the TE market, so really there wasn't that much to work with and overall they have done a pretty decent job with what there was to work with. I like the move for Sanders but really don't see him as a gamechanger but do see him as a good piece, and that seems to be the overall approach to this offseason, shoring up their own free agents and adding pieces who can contribute in the overall scheme of things. At this point they are basically winding down and should be able to add another vet or two and a couple of key pieces in the draft, so they really should end up with a better and deeper team heading into next season. I like the Edelman move as it adds some depth and is insurance if Sanders goes back to Pitt. Bring in Freeney and maybe Winfield and add a WR and CB or pass rusher in the draft and it will have been a good offseason overall.

The Wal-Mart analogy doesn't work at all because there aren't any Chinese or Vietnamese players in the NFL, and that's all you would be choosing from.

Ivan said:

I think that's overly simplistic, what matters is the big picture and keeping your best players is a part of that, and when you look at what happened to the Ravens this offseason i would argue that it's a critical part of maintaining your team, and not just standard fare.

Click to expand...

in football, when you have the money to keep your players, keeping your players is expected, and it's what you're supposed to do. I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue against this.

Deus Irae said:

in football, when you have the money to keep your players, keeping your players is expected, and it's what you're supposed to do. I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue against this.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure i have laid that out for you, and with specifics, you just seem to be saying that's just the way it is and i should accept your take but don't make any attempt at laying out what different approach they should have taken, with whom, and at what cost. If you have an opposing argument lay it out, i already told i would be interested to hear what you think they should have done but for some reason you refuse to make that argument.

Rob0729 said:

But acquiring a free agent isn't like shopping at either place. Many times when you acquire a top tier free agent, you get Walmart customer service and quality at a Nordstrom's price. Many times you get a lower tier free agent, you get Nordstrom's customer service and quality at a Walmart price.

Unlike your shopping analogy, the quality of the product in NFL free agency is not as constant and guaranteed based on what you pay as you get in the retail world.

Click to expand...

You've got pretty much everything wrong here, but that's likely because you're stuck on an analogy rather than the overaching concept. Again, the "Walmart" thing came from a report that the Patriots were talking about shopping at Walmart this year, and it's an obvious analogy even though it's imperfect. If you have an issue with it, take it up with them.

The reality is that the Patriots have a system of signing low money deals and generally ignoring the high price FAs. That system works when it works, and it fails miserably when it fails. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked very often in the post-2004 Patriots era.

This was a year where they could have signed young players in their prime for those Walmart prices. Instead, we've got guys like Kelly, Wilson and Jenkins. Even in a down year for salaries, BB couldn't resist getting the 'bargain' players instead of looking for the higher level players who were being had for a bargain. Time will tell us whether or not it worked this year.

Ivan said:

I'm pretty sure i have laid that out for you, and with specifics, you just seem to be saying that's just the way it is and i should accept your take but don't make any attempt at laying out what different approach they should have taken, with whom, and at what cost. If you have an opposing argument lay it out, i already told i would be interested to hear what you think they should have done but for some reason you refuse to make that argument.

Click to expand...

No, you went off on a whole range of things which weren't on point. Signing Dumervil, for example, is irrelevant to whether or not the Patriots should get a cookie and an "attaboy" for keeping their own players.

Ivan said:

I think that's overly simplistic, what matters is the big picture and keeping your best players is a part of that, and when you look at what happened to the Ravens this offseason i would argue that it's a critical part of maintaining your team, and not just standard fare. And as much as i wanted them to make moves for impact players I am still not seeing where they could have gone in this market without overpaying grotesquely, as the Dolphins did, or bringing in guys just to bring them in, which is what I think Avril would have been. I love Ed Reed but felt like they were between a rock and a hard place because McCourty is not a strong safety and I don't think moving him back to CB was a good option, thus the move with Wilson who actually fits their needs more as they really needed a hammer on early downs and a guy who might be able to side to a hybrid LB role and cover LB's. they need pass rushers but I don't think Dumervil is a fit here, and Kruger is an overpaid Ninkovich imo, he's better, but not much and at a much higher cost. The OL market didn't make much sense for them nor did the TE market, so really there wasn't that much to work with and overall they have done a pretty decent job with what there was to work with. I like the move for Sanders but really don't see him as a gamechanger but do see him as a good piece, and that seems to be the overall approach to this offseason, shoring up their own free agents and adding pieces who can contribute in the overall scheme of things. At this point they are basically winding down and should be able to add another vet or two and a couple of key pieces in the draft, so they really should end up with a better and deeper team heading into next season. I like the Edelman move as it adds some depth and is insurance if Sanders goes back to Pitt. Bring in Freeney and maybe Winfield and add a WR and CB or pass rusher in the draft and it will have been a good offseason overall.

Click to expand...

This! I think the "fans" that wanted the Pats to spend money, just to spend money are the ones that spend too much time playing Madden. This is real life football and this is what teams do to build championships. They've kept the same defense in place and added 3 players that I think will each make impacts on defense (Armstead, Wilson, Kelly). On offense, yea they lost Welker, but his production will be replaced by the tight ends. And they have added maybe not star WR but guys that can get open down the field. Again I understan in Madden they got worse, cuz they lost a 96 rated reciever in Welker, and replaced him with a bunch of guys in the low 80's, but in real life...the team got stronger..

Deus Irae said:

in football, when you have the money to keep your players, keeping your players is expected, and it's what you're supposed to do. I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue against this.

Click to expand...

That isn't true. There are plenty of times when team have plenty of money to keep their players and they let their players go and it is the right thing to do.

I personally wished the Pats kept Welker especially at the price he got signed for, but was it expected for them to do? I don't know about that. Welker is at the age that it would be understandable for them to want to move on.

The Pats subscribe to the philosophy "it is better to lose a player one year too soon than one year too late". For the most part, it has worked out for them. We will see if it does in Welker's case.

Deus Irae said:

No, you went off on a whole range of things which weren't on point. Signing Dumervil, for example, is irrelevant to whether or not the Patriots should get a cookie and an "attaboy" for keeping their own players.

Click to expand...

Lmao-yes deus, laying out the various moves and choices they have made in free agency isn't relevant to a discussion of free agency. Tell you what, if you want to have the discussion on just your terms then have it with yourself, i'm not going to do it for you. Free agency and the overall offseason are all interrelated, and if you don't comprehend that then i don't know what to tell you. Like it or not Vollmer and Talib were unrestricted free agents, not simply "their players" and re-signing them matters and counts toward their offseason moves.

Rob0729 said:

That isn't true. There are plenty of times when team have plenty of money to keep their players and they let their players go and it is the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

It is true. It's always been true. It continues to be true today. It'll almost certainly still be true in the future.

Ivan said:

Lmao-yes deus, laying out the various moves and choices they have made in free agency isn't relevant to a discussion of free agency.

Click to expand...

Now you're doing what everyone else is trying to do, which is widen the discussion. What I posted was simple, obvious and historical. When you have money, you keep your players, and you don't get "attaboy" for that, because it's what you're supposed to do.

Dumervil has nothing to do with that, since he wasn't a Patriots player.


Just to point out, I'm actively avoiding two things here:

1.) Widening the discussion (something a Mod discussed while noting that he'd been deleting posts because people were not doing so)

2.) Getting into a full blown argument about something that's incredibly obvious and has been seen throughout history. You're all basically trying to argue against "water is wet".


Those of you who wish to argue this point can argue against pretty much every GM in the NFL. I'm not going go further oblige this.

JDot said:

Contract details..



Full break down here..

Inside Kelly's two-year deal - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I would think this contract indicates the Pats believe he still has some gas in the tank.


Sorry if this was posted already..

Click to expand...

Seems like a reasonable deal. He plays and performs he gets paid. He doesn't, only $1M guaranteed. Hopefully he embraces the "Patriot way". I think he (still) has the talent. He will just need to learn some discipline. Both on the field and off. I am sure the first meeting with BB will be about Kelly's relationship with the media. In Oakland, he was the go-to guy for the media. He was always good for a quote. I am sure that will be addressed.

Deus Irae said:

It is true. It's always been true. It continues to be true today. It'll almost certainly still be true in the future.

Click to expand...

I disagree. We have seen plenty of times where teams let players walk. The Bucs could have afforded Michael Bennett and let him walk. The 49ers could have afforded Dashon Goldson and let him walk.

There are a number of factors that go into keeping a player and letting them go. There is no hard and fast rule that if you can afford to keep a player, you keep him.

There are a lot of reasons why you would let Welker walk even if you could afford him. Concerns about his age and durability at an age where receiver who take the abuse he has taken throughout his career are legitimate reasons to let him walk. Whether those reasons are valid or will come to fruition are something we will have to see if they come true. Personally, I would have kept him.

The Pats got Amendola ($4 million against the cap) and Kelly ($2 million against the cap) for about the same cap hit that Welker would have cost (around $6 million if the Pats gave a similar contract as Denver gave). We will see as the season unfolds which ended up being the better value. It could very well be Welker.

Deus Irae said:

in football, when you have the money to keep your players, keeping your players is expected, and it's what you're supposed to do. I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue against this.

Click to expand...

Then the Pats didn't "do what they are supposed to do" in not keeping Pat Chung?

Your post is overly simplistic and wrong. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just struggling with the English language there.

Teams should only keep the players they WANT to keep.

shmessy said:

Then the Pats didn't "do what they are supposed to do" in not keeping Pat Chung?

Your post is overly simplistic and wrong. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just struggling with the English language there.

Teams should only keep the players they WANT to keep.

Click to expand...

I agree. Anyone team that would follow absolute rules like this is bound to put together a crappy team. Every player situation is different and you approach building your roster on a case by case basis, not by a series of absolute rules. You can have general philosophies when it comes to free agency, but you cannot have a set of inflexible rules.

Deus Irae said:

When you're flush with cash, keeping your own players is what you're supposed to do, so keeping them doesn't make up for anything.

Click to expand...

Except they weren't "our" players they were actual FAs. If they had be resigned before the start of FA or franchised or restricted in some other way then I would agree with you. However that was not the case.