Will Belichick go "all-in" when Brady's window is closing?

Many on here have criticized Belichick for not being aggressive enough or in "win-now" mode, citing other (dumb, proven to be wrong) teams like Denver and their catering to Manning's closing window. This talk has been prevalent on this board since roughly 2012 and would still dominate many discussions had not the Patriots won the Super Bowl with a great team, though one that was not necessarily much better than others that have come up short due to bad luck and injuries.

However, we have now realized that Brady's window is longer than we had anticipated, as quarterbacks are aging well in an era where they are protected from being concussed, late hit, or hit below the waist. That, along with modern approaches to injuries, healing, and nutrition have given quarterbacks longer lives at the position with skills diminishing at a very slow rate.

So, the question is, will Belichick go "all-in" when he truly senses that Brady's career is nearing an end, assuming he has no worthy successor? Will he begin to mortgage the future, take changes on the short-term that may adversely effect the franchise down the road? Pay premium salaries for proven, hungry veterans while sacrificing the team's ongoing young player development program? Trade for more draft picks now while borrowing from future drafts?

Just curious what everyone thinks about this...I personally think he will when the time is right, but he wasn't as panicked as the average fan and realizes Tom is not near his end yet. The Broncos and Saints tried similar strategies of going "all-in" and are now in cap hell, while their HoF QBs are now wasting away wishing they had been more patient...perhaps the Saints thought Brees was nearer to the end than he actually was? While the Broncos may have been justified in their risk but only time will tell how long Manning has in being an above average QB (in the regular season.) I've always thought that, unless there truly is a short window, it's not worth going from a 20% to a 30% chance to win the Super Bowl in one given year - by making a bunch of moves aimed only at winning right now - when your franchise will suffer for those short-sighted decisions many times over.

I don't think he'll ever do it with draft picks. Taking a 3rd round pick this year rather than a 2nd round pick a year later, for example, doesn't add enough to "win now" to be worth seriously considering.

Shifting a bit of salary from year to year is a different matter. I think he might be more willing, for example, to RISK dead money down the road as part of a "win soon" strategy.

i doubt it

he's gonna coach after brady is gone

not gonna lessen his chances to win in the future

That would go completely against eveything else than he has done, so I absolutely don't think so. Very rarely does going all in on a year or two pay off. What does pay off, and what we have done, is having the team constantly rebuild so that it never really gets old. When a player gets old and starts to decline there is already someone younger to replace him.

I think it would be a bad move to go all in when we have such a young team with so much young talent as we would probably end up loosing them to go all in on older guys. If we matched the Revis contract for example we might have end up loosing several of DMac, Hightower, Jones, and Collins. Then you sit there with a 30+ year old corner that might start to decline quickly, and loose young talent that are probably good for a long time.

Highly doubt it, not in BB's blood to do that. I see him sticking to the plan.

Stick to the plan. Don't play for one year.

Just don't see it as it runs counter to his philosophy.

What exactly are we calling last season?

I don't think he would. I think Belichick's MO, and ultimately his legacy, is going to be about never having to go all in. Just sustaining a championship-caliber team, year in and year out, without having to mortgage the future.

meatface said:

What exactly are we calling last season?

Click to expand...

Great point in terms of reminding us that Revis came with a hefty price tag, so some claimed that we were going all in. If that's the definition that we're using, then I could envision seeing that again under the right circumstances.

There were other middle tiered signings that we normally see, like choosing to go with Brandon LaFell instead of Emmanuel Sanders, who would have cost more. Judging by that, I would not consider 2014 to be the consensus definition for "all in," but one can definitely make a strong argument.

Why sacrifice the future when your the best in the business at constructing the present?

After last season Belichick can do whatever the hell he wants because I can't doubt him anymore.

Why would anyone even ask this at this point. Bill is who is, and we've seen him for 15 years. He isn't going to suddenly morph into a different person, and he isn't going to sacrifice the future for the present.

The only thing I could see him doing is having two 1st round picks like we had before ... waiting for a special QB if it's not Grop.

I don't think BB will go all in when HIS window is closing... so no.

Absolutely not and this year proves it. Would we have won this year if we panicked and overinvested in past years. Maybe we would have pulled one out prior but maybe not and maybe we instead used up resources that cost us Collins or Revis or something anything.

Belichick will never go all-in.

1) I think he's too principled when it comes to how a team should be run to want to leave it in tatters when he departs.
2) I think he'll have an heir to the team in mind and would want them to be in a good position to succeed when he leaves.
3) I definitely think he'll want to prove he can win without Brady so Brady's inevitable departure in the next few years won't send him flying into a spending frenzy.

supafly said:

Great point in terms of reminding us that Revis came with a hefty price tag, so some claimed that we were going all in. If that's the definition that we're using, then I could envision seeing that again under the right circumstances.

There were other middle tiered signings that we normally see, like choosing to go with Brandon LaFell instead of Emmanuel Sanders, who would have cost more. Judging by that, I would not consider 2014 to be the consensus definition for "all in," but one can definitely make a strong argument.

Click to expand...

I'd say they sort of did that last year and it paid off. They went out and brought in Revis and Browner for a lot of money. The result was one of the top cornerback combos in the league and a defense that was a blast to watch down the stretch last year. They pretty much went all in on the wide receiver position in 2007 by bringing in Welker, Stallworth and Moss. So I think BB does it at times but is pretty selective about when he does it.

supafly said:

Great point in terms of reminding us that Revis came with a hefty price tag, so some claimed that we were going all in. If that's the definition that we're using, then I could envision seeing that again under the right circumstances.

There were other middle tiered signings that we normally see, like choosing to go with Brandon LaFell instead of Emmanuel Sanders, who would have cost more. Judging by that, I would not consider 2014 to be the consensus definition for "all in," but one can definitely make a strong argument.

Click to expand...

Signing a bunch of high priced free agents doesn't seem to make you more likely to win a superbowl.

Doesn't this question come up every year? And isn't the answer always no? Why would it change this year?