Tired about all this "All In" talk

Ever since the Logan Mankins was traded, all the media wants to talk about how the Pats weren't actually "All In" after thinking for months that they were.

Name me the last team that had an "All In" strategy and won the Super Bowl. Sure not every team had Tom Brady, but many teams had Super Bowl contending talent that were close to the end of their career that could have been considered the best team in the league if they went "All In". That "All In" strategy rarely works because there are too many variables into going winning a championship and many years the best team doesn't win the Super Bowl.

The closest the Pats ever went "All In" was 2007 and look how that panned out. They ended losing in the Super Bowl to a team that was fighting for their playoff lives in December of that year and were considered an one and done team in the playoffs. The Giants that year were considered a team with a great d-line, horrible secondary, and an average QB.

In fact other than the Seahawks last year and the Saints, you can argue that none of the Super Bowl winners were the best team in the NFL since the Pats last won. Many of them played on Wild Card weekend like the Ravens, Giants (both times), Packers, Colts, and Steelers.

Personally, I never thought they were "All In" anyway because all the Pats did was get Revis as any sign of them being "All In". I also don't think trading away Mankins will do much of anything to affect the Pats' chances of winning the Super Bowl unless Wright turns into a stud.

Totally agree. As I said in another thread, BB clearly believes the best way to get championships is to get to the playoffs as often as you can, playing your best, and seeing what happens. Single-elimination tournaments are very fluky (as we all know for good and bad).

If you go "all-in" (which in a salary cap environment is another word for "mortgage the future") there's still a good chance you won't win it all, and after a year or two you've deprived yourself of playoff appearances. I'd rather be a contender every year.

I'm going to be lazy and paste in my thoughts from a recent thread on "all in" madness:

patchick said:

Every year, some fans call for the team to go for broke this year and not worry about next year, because this team could win it all. Yet every "this year" is last year's "next year". Every one of these rosters that has the chance to go all the way is the result of thinking beyond this year.

The best team doesn't always win (cf. 2007). Injuries happen. The more "this years" you have, the greater your chances of reaching the mountaintop.

Click to expand...

BTW, the Jets went "All In" circa 2009-2010 where they went out and brought in high priced free agents like Bart Scott and made trades for Santonio Holmes and others. It brought them to the AFC Championship Game twice, but no farther (the Pats made it three years in a row and went to the Super Bowl once without going "All In"), but they never even went to a Super Bowl nevermind won it. And look at them since. They haven't been more than 8-8 since.

Last time I can think of was Denver, circa 1998-1999...and they cheated the salary cap to do it.

"All In", "The Patriot Way", etc. are media constructs for "look at me" articles. Rob, etc. are right.

These are the same people that have been crying since the draft that they haven't got another TE.

All of the all-in talk ignores the fact that the Pats are spending so little cash this year. Cash spending goes up and down each year for NFL teams. As of now, this is a down year. Several extensions (McCourty, Revis, Slater, Ghost, Vereen, Aiken, Cannon, Ridley) could increase the Patriots cash spending this year.

JMC00 said:

These are the same people that have been crying since the draft that they haven't got another TE.

Click to expand...

That is the funny thing. The storyline last week was "We can't count on Gronk playing 16 games and when he goes down, all they have is Hooman who caught 12 balls last year. Probably the biggest need right now is another TE who can catch the ball.". Now the storyline is "Do we really need a move TE more than an All Pro guard?".

Rob0729 said:

BTW, the Jets went "All In" circa 2009-2010 where they went out and brought in high priced free agents like Bart Scott and made trades for Santonio Holmes and others. It brought them to the AFC Championship Game twice, but no farther (the Pats made it three years in a row and went to the Super Bowl once without going "All In"), but they never even went to a Super Bowl nevermind won it. And look at them since. They haven't been more than 8-8 since.

Click to expand...

Well the jets are severely lacking in the qb position which explains their terrible play afterwards. And their head coach really should be a def coordinator. While the pats have a GOAT candidate at both qb and head coach. I think that's the biggest difference between the two squads.

Rob0729 said:

BTW, the Jets went "All In" circa 2009-2010 where they went out and brought in high priced free agents like Bart Scott and made trades for Santonio Holmes and others. It brought them to the AFC Championship Game twice, but no farther (the Pats made it three years in a row and went to the Super Bowl once without going "All In"), but they never even went to a Super Bowl nevermind won it. And look at them since. They haven't been more than 8-8 since.

Click to expand...

And really all that was Woody Johnson trying to sell PSLs for the new stadium.

Rob0729 said:

T Now the storyline is "Do we really need a move TE more than an All Pro guard?".

Click to expand...

Whiners gonna whine And no matter how you try to explain it to these simpletons they wont get it and will just point to zero championships in the last 10 years as proof.

And by the by, LM wasn't even playing at a ALl Pro level.

Rob0729 said:

The closest the Pats ever went "All In" was 2007 and look how that panned out.

Click to expand...

Yeah what a disaster that season was. They won 18 straight games before losing the Super Bowl by a whisker. Obviously the strategy behind building that team was written by a babbling, incoherent moron.

Rob0729 said:

Name me the last team that had an "All In" strategy and won the Super Bowl.

[...]

In fact other than the Seahawks last year and the Saints, you can argue that none of the Super Bowl winners were the best team in the NFL since the Pats last won. Many of them played on Wild Card weekend like the Ravens, Giants (both times), Packers, Colts, and Steelers.

Click to expand...

Though you discount them, I'm still going to say Baltimore Ravens, 2012. That was their last year in the window, Ray Lewis announced his pending retirement, and they dumped old, high salary players afterwards. No Super Bowl winning team has ever had to let go more starters.

unoriginal said:

Though you discount them, I'm still going to say Baltimore Ravens, 2012. That was their last year in the window, Ray Lewis announced his pending retirement, and they dumped old, high salary players afterwards. No Super Bowl winning team has ever had to let go more starters.

Click to expand...

The Ravens were not the most talented team in 2012. They won that year much like how the Giants won their Super Bowl the year before. Their average QB played like an elite QB for four games in the playoffs. Along with the emotion of Ray Lewis' retirement. The Ravens limped into playoffs as a Wild Card team and everyone thought the were one and done against the Texans.

As for "all in", they didn't sign any big names for a quick hit. They just kept the gang together for one more year. I consider an "all in" philosophy as being a Super Bowl competitor and adding some big named pieces like Denver did this offseason.

SB39 said:

Yeah what a disaster that season was. They won 18 straight games before losing the Super Bowl by a whisker. Obviously the strategy behind building that team was written by a babbling, incoherent moron.

Click to expand...

I never said the season was a disaster. I pointed out they they lost to an average team that got hot in the playoffs that just shows that going "all in" and being the best team in the league doesn't guarantee you a ring and teams with major weaknesses can beat far better teams in the playoffs. Forget that the Giants really had no business beating the Pats with their roster, they should have never gotten past Wild Card weekend based on talent alone.

Rob0729 said:

The Ravens were not the most talented team in 2012. They won that year much like how the Giants won their Super Bowl the year before. Their average QB played like an elite QB for four games in the playoffs. Along with the emotion of Ray Lewis' retirement. The Ravens limped into playoffs as a Wild Card team and everyone thought the were one and done against the Texans.

As for "all in", they didn't sign any big names for a quick hit. They just kept the gang together for one more year. I consider an "all in" philosophy as being a Super Bowl competitor and adding some big named pieces like Denver did this offseason.

Click to expand...

I guess we have a different idea of all in. Structuring a team so that a bunch of cap charges balloon after a certain point works for me.

I think if the Pats were projected to be in cap hell with a bunch of key players retiring or with their contracts up next year most of us would consider them to be all in this year.

The Patriots are all in, but it's for this and future seasons. A much longer window of time than the average mediot can comprehend.

Rob0729 said:

I never said the season was a disaster. I pointed out they they lost to an average team that got hot in the playoffs that just shows that going "all in" and being the best team in the league doesn't guarantee you a ring and teams with major weaknesses can beat far better teams in the playoffs.

Click to expand...

Nothing guarantees you a ring. Going all in does not guarantee a ring. Playing it conservative does not guarantee a ring. So to say it is not smart to go all in because it doesn't guarantee a ring is pretty darn silly, isn't it?

SB39 said:

Nothing guarantees you a ring. Going all in does not guarantee a ring. Playing it conservative does not guarantee a ring. So to say it is not smart to go all in because it doesn't guarantee a ring is pretty darn silly, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Not at all. There is a lot more risk in going "all in" because you are mortgaging the future to win now. You gamble on going "all in" one year, you risk being mediocre for a number of years. You do what the Pats and several other teams do and you are consistently Super Bowl contenders.