Matt Chatham with a nice takedown of the "Pats are too cheap and won't get WEAPONZ" crowd

AzPatsFan · Oct 3, 2014

Deus Irae said:
Belichick has a deliberate system. With few exceptions, he'd rather pay 2 guys $3million each than one guy $6 million. That's not what was in play in Denver. Denver initially thought Sanders would be outside their price range. When they realized he was close enough to Lafell to be in range, they pounced. Contrast that with the Patriots/Welker situation. The Patriots went with the slightly cheaper player, instead of paying Welker a bit more.

Again, Denver spent the extra money to get their guy, and NE let Welker go for a couple million. It's another point that destroys Chatham's article.

Green Bay, with its history of avoiding FA, and the failure to replace an injured TE, would have been a much smarter comparison for Chatham.

The Broncos have had ****ty years in the past decade. AND THEY WILL AGAIN. They are going for broke this year.

It will bite them in the ass in a few years.

You are quite correct Belichick would much rather have 2 stars at $3 million each, rather than 1 Superstar at $6 million. No other team has come close to the Patriots record over a decade and a half. So it must work pretty well. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

In addition, BB is just finishing up a massive rebuilding project replacing 51 of 53 players on the squad in 4.5 years, as the earlier SB generation got old and went Over the Hill. He was not endowed with multiple high picks and even was penalized with the only 1st round pick ever taken away. Top 5, 0 picks, or Top10, 0 picks, or TOP15, 1 pick. or Top 20, 1 pick. That is not a Kings ransom to work with.

Most of the posters here complain that players like Julio Jones or JJ Watt, or Adrian Peterson are not on the team. The Patriots never even had a shot at those players. Still they have had the best record in football for 15 years, because of Belichick's cheap draft picks, which as many forget, INCLUDE a the 6th round draft pick, a guy named TOM BRADY.

pats4life12 · Oct 3, 2014

It's a good article he brings up some good point. I think it's good how he starts comparing us to diffrent teams like the Broncos.

KamikazeKnight · Oct 3, 2014

Danger Zone said:
Having a different opinion = dismissed as a homer

It's just Douche Irae doing what he does best.. no biggy.

Snake Eyes · Oct 3, 2014

AzPatsFan said:
The Broncos have had ****ty years in the past decade. AND THEY WILL AGAIN. They are going for broke this year.

It will bite them in the ass in a few years.

Suppose they win the SB this year because of it, who cares? Winning the Lombardi is all that matter, the teams that come in 2nd and 32nd all failed. I'd much rather have the minerals to truly go for it and pay the price later than to settle for sustained mediocrity, don't get me wrong, the first option won't put nearly as much money in the owner's pockets but that's not a concern of mine.

Great QBs are very hard to come by, and the Broncos haven't had one since Elway, now they're maximizing the opportunity, I consider that very wise.

AzPatsFan said:
No other team has come close to the Patriots record over a decade and a half. So it must work pretty well. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

How many other teams have TFB as their QB? Having one of the best QBs ever makes life in the NFL a lot easier, so I don't think you can use their record as proof that their general personnel strategy is sound.

Also, drafting Brady is NOT proof of their personnel genius, they won the lottery with him, if they had the slightest clue what he was capable of becoming they wouldn't have waited until the 6th round to grab him, they thought he was a camp arm with potential to maybe compete for the backup QB position.

JayNM · Oct 4, 2014

I don't think they are cheap, but i do think that sometimes they misjudge talent and are way too stubborn

Deus Irae · Oct 4, 2014

AzPatsFan said:
...You are quite correct Belichick would much rather have 2 stars at $3 million each, rather than 1 Superstar at $6 million. No other team has come close to the Patriots record over a decade and a half. So it must work pretty well. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

1.) Who said anything about stars? BB almost never signs star players. If you take out Revis, a clear example of a star, there's Colvin, and there's AdT, and that's basically it.
2.) The "Proof of the pudding" in New England is having TFB as your QB. In Indy, it was having Peyton Manning.
3.) Last year is a perfect example of the downside of the BB style. The Patriots were going shopping at Walmart, remember? How'd that work out?

AzPatsFan said:
In addition, BB is just finishing up a massive rebuilding project replacing 51 of 53 players on the squad in 4.5 years, as the earlier SB generation got old and went Over the Hill. He was not endowed with multiple high picks and even was penalized with the only 1st round pick ever taken away. Top 5, 0 picks, or Top10, 0 picks, or TOP15, 1 pick. or Top 20, 1 pick. That is not a Kings ransom to work with.

He's had that Brady guy the whole way through.

AzPatsFan said:
Most of the posters here complain that players like Julio Jones or JJ Watt, or Adrian Peterson are not on the team. The Patriots never even had a shot at those players. Still they have had the best record in football for 15 years, because of Belichick's cheap draft picks, which as many forget, INCLUDE a the 6th round draft pick, a guy named TOM BRADY.

This is simply not true. First, trades would allow Belichick to move up. Second, it's not just the Julio Jones' of the world that have been passed on. Just using WR as the position, since you brought up Jones, the Patriots could have had Demaryius Thomas or Dez Bryant in 2010, for example, in round one and without any trade ups.

I don't adhere to the notion that Belichick and the Patriots are too cheap. Personally, I think the spending here has largely been fine, though they could obviously (fact, not opinion... see Forbes article)
have been spending more at times, and I think any issue about the Patriots with cash is more accurately focused on the "how" rather than the "if". However, Chatham's article is garbage, and it actually undercuts any defense of the Patriots spending. As I noted, he'd have been much better served pointing to Green Bay and just giving Denver a "yeah, but".

PATS16N0 · Oct 4, 2014

Sustaining a certain level of excellence for so long is certainly an accomplishment. A Superbowl trophy crowns the best team of the season, but that doesn't negate the fact that the Patriots have been the class of the NFL since basically 2001. When you consider the number of conference rivals we have had that were the primary battle of AFC dominance, it is rather astounding. Where are the mighty Steelers now? Where are the Colts? Where are the Ravens? Today it's Denver. The constant has been New England.

In that regard I agree with AZ, but at a certain point you have to say, "Where the #%$# is the Lombardi?"

The fact that we have come to the same hump, so often, for so long, without making it over, really makes me believe that Tom has been covering up greater weaknesses than we imagined, which is what plenty of other fan bases have said, which in defense of our HC, we did not want to believe.

All of those devastating blow outs were always making all of our competition one dimensional and desperate after the second quarter, game after game, season after season.

Whatever we've done or not done obviously wasn't enough. We've been knocking at the door for way too long now and it's sort of lost its charm. I think Tom is better suited to having one great weapon instead of two pretty good ones, because he can make most bad ones look manageable. Just look what he has done with Gronk alone. Who even needs other people on the field with that kind of domination?

With that in mind, I would prefer more signing one mega star and one jag instead of two LaFells

ausbacker · Oct 4, 2014

AzPatsFan said:
The Broncos have had ****ty years in the past decade. AND THEY WILL AGAIN. They are going for broke this year.

It will bite them in the ass in a few years.

You are quite correct Belichick would much rather have 2 stars at $3 million each, rather than 1 Superstar at $6 million. No other team has come close to the Patriots record over a decade and a half. So it must work pretty well. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

In addition, BB is just finishing up a massive rebuilding project replacing 51 of 53 players on the squad in 4.5 years, as the earlier SB generation got old and went Over the Hill. He was not endowed with multiple high picks and even was penalized with the only 1st round pick ever taken away. Top 5, 0 picks, or Top10, 0 picks, or TOP15, 1 pick. or Top 20, 1 pick. That is not a Kings ransom to work with.

Most of the posters here complain that players like Julio Jones or JJ Watt, or Adrian Peterson are not on the team. The Patriots never even had a shot at those players. Still they have had the best record in football for 15 years, because of Belichick's cheap draft picks, which as many forget, INCLUDE a the 6th round draft pick, a guy named TOM BRADY.

I don't think the Broncos current strategy is going to bite them in the ass. If Osweiler develops, they're well positioned to manage their cap and transition from Manning.

PATS16N0 · Oct 4, 2014

Yes, as much as I have always disliked Elway's face, he is doing a good job as GM. They can basically cut bait on all their investments. We'll see how he continues to draft after the Josh drafts start wanting paychecks.

DarrylS · Oct 4, 2014

An interesting factoid that since they drafted Seymour with the 6th pick in 2001... they have averaged the 25th first pick in the draft...

The unintended consequence of not sucking....

SHOWTIME15 · Oct 4, 2014

It's more like the patriots can't draft wide receivers than them not making an attempt to acquire them via FA or trade.

SHOWTIME15 · Oct 4, 2014

DarrylS said:
An interesting factoid that since they drafted Seymour with the 6th pick in 2001... they have averaged the 25th first pick in the draft...

The unintended consequence of not sucking....

Which is why the draft day trade downs are the more puzzling...

Patsgofor4 · Oct 4, 2014

Deus Irae said:
But he's full of it in the article. They went out and practically stole the guy they wanted. Sanders was literally in the office in K.C., getting ready to sign a contract, and the Broncos went at him hard enough to convince him to leave that place and sign with them.

Contrast that with NE. NE comes out looking exactly the way people have been painting things. NE tried to sign Sanders to a cheap offer sheet and failed. Then, when Sanders was on the market, they signed Lafell on the comparative cheap, instead, while Denver was the team that ponied up for Sanders. In other words, by choosing Denver, Chatham chose the worst possible comparison, and doomed his article from the start.

The only person who is full of it is you, as always. The Broncos' first choice was Lafell. When they lost out on Lafell to the Pats, they changed course and stole Sanders, the other WR they had targeted at the start of FA, from the Chiefs.

http://www.bobgretz.com/chiefs-football/all-is-fair-in-love-war-free-agency.html

Sanders said the same thing at the time, that the Broncos came after him aggressively after losing out on another WR (Lafell). You are perfect combination of Borges and Obama, a bitter douche who always thinks that he is the smartest person in the room (but isn't). The only different is that neither Borges nor Obama lives in his parents' basement.

1960Pats · Oct 4, 2014

Can't people make their points without insulting those they disagree with?

If some of you were standing face to face to the person you're insulting you wouldn't make a peep.

vyrago · Oct 4, 2014

Bill Lee said:
I agree. Here's a bit more from the end of the article:

It seems more popular on this site to join 'the sky is falling' crowd. I'm kind of surprised since it's the exact kind of behavior that Pats fans often criticize others of doing. As Aaron Rodgers said, 'r-e-l-a-x'! People look really asinine beating up on their own team of choice. Let's let things play out some more. The team deserves it.

He says exactly why he chose Denver:

That's also why others are doing so.

Keep in mind the Broncos went through a lot of suckage during the Jake Plummer, Jay Cutler, Kyle Orton, and Tim Tebow eras that gave them a lot of high draft picks go through a lot of draft winners and losers and we're mainly seeing the aftermath of that, along with some aggressive free agent contracts being handed out by the Elway management team. Yes, that means WIN NOW in a big way, with all the plusses and minuses that brings. They've sucked throughout most of the Brady era, and are cashing in that suckage for a few years of excitement then a lot of suckage once Womanning retires.

Yes, that's true, but we can't give away top of market deals to all the veterans and still win all but two AFC East championships since 2001. We see Denver's owner passed away this year. It seems to me he decided it was OK to blow the team's fiscal wad before he cashed it in, but there will be a price to pay for it.

Bill Lee said:
Womanning

vyrago · Oct 4, 2014

Is that "womanning" absolutely necessary? because it really offends me.

SVN · Oct 4, 2014

PATS16N0 said:
Sustaining a certain level of excellence for so long is certainly an accomplishment. A Superbowl trophy crowns the best team of the season, but that doesn't negate the fact that the Patriots have been the class of the NFL since basically 2001. When you consider the number of conference rivals we have had that were the primary battle of AFC dominance, it is rather astounding. Where are the mighty Steelers now? Where are the Colts? Where are the Ravens? Today it's Denver. The constant has been New England.

In that regard I agree with AZ, but at a certain point you have to say, "Where the #%$# is the Lombardi?"

The fact that we have come to the same hump, so often, for so long, without making it over, really makes me believe that Tom has been covering up greater weaknesses than we imagined, which is what plenty of other fan bases have said, which in defense of our HC, we did not want to believe.

All of those devastating blow outs were always making all of our competition one dimensional and desperate after the second quarter, game after game, season after season.

Whatever we've done or not done obviously wasn't enough. We've been knocking at the door for way too long now and it's sort of lost its charm. I think Tom is better suited to having one great weapon instead of two pretty good ones, because he can make most bad ones look manageable. Just look what he has done with Gronk alone. Who even needs other people on the field with that kind of domination?

With that in mind, I would prefer more signing one mega star and one jag instead of two LaFells

Well.the 2 SB losses came down to one or two plays which if made wouldve made people forget about all these issues. And gronk hasnt played healthy since the last SB which has been a big issue. So while the pats have faltered , it hasnt because of the same issues.

FCB02062 · Oct 4, 2014

Simple as this: belichick would much rather draft 3 corners in rds 2, 3, and 5 than trade up for a top 15 guy...it is and always has been about the $ with this organization since kraft bought the team. The pats struck gold with their free agents in 2000-2004, wih most coming on cheap deals - vrabel, phifer, otis smith, etc....
my biggest fear is belichciks drafting and player personnel decisions are going to turn the pats into the belichcik browns; after all thjs is a guy who drafted a fullback in the first round.....

Jackson 2 · Oct 4, 2014

vyrago said:
Is that "womanning" absolutely necessary? because it really offends me.

Agreed. Never understood those types of intended putdowns, as if attaching a feminine characteristic to a football player is an insult. We've all seen them, "vaginal bleeding", " wearing a skirt", "she" instead of "he", etc. Hell, I've done it myself and always regret it afterwards. As if woman are somehow less worthy or inferior to men.

Snake Eyes · Oct 4, 2014

FCB02062 said:
Simple as this: belichick would much rather draft 3 corners in rds 2, 3, and 5 than trade up for a top 15 guy

That's a problem when you fail on those later round guys.

Matt Chatham with a nice takedown of the "Pats are too cheap and won't get WEAPONZ" crowd

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

On the Game Day Roster

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

TB12

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

No asterisks

No asterisks

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract