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

Rob0729 · Jul 9, 2015

Shouldn't the results of the Broncos efforts answer the question? And it wasn't all because of Manning's fall. Welker crapped the bed last year. deMarcus Ware stared out strong and faded as the season went along. Talib was invisible yet again in big playoff game. TJ Ward was not worth the money Denver paid him. Only Sanders exceeded expectations.

JoeSixPat · Jul 9, 2015

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

I donno - I think Belichick kindof did an all in overhaul after 2006 on offense - got some great deals but he made some major and bold moves.

I don't think he'd ever mortgage the future but there's a time to hold on to your chips and a time to use them

Ice_Ice_Brady · Jul 9, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Shouldn't the results of the Broncos efforts answer the question? And it wasn't all because of Manning's fall. Welker crapped the bed last year. deMarcus Ware stared out strong and faded as the season went along. Talib was invisible yet again in big playoff game. TJ Ward was not worth the money Denver paid him. Only Sanders exceeded expectations.

Let's not assume Belichick would make foolish moves like Elway. Mortgaging the future for the present doesn't always mean you are botching the present as well.

supafly · Jul 9, 2015

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

I definitely agree with you. I was just commenting on what the definition may have been in relation to last season, since you brought it up. The addition of Browner, Revis, and LaFell really helped a great deal--although I only consider one of those three to be a "splash" signing that costs a lot.

The other two were generally the type of middle tiered signings that we often see from Belichick, although the combination of all three probably placed us as close to the "all in" category as we're likely to see (IMO). I would not want to see anything more than 2014 in terms of big players and money spent, although I don't think Belichick pigeon holes himself one way or the other. What we have seen are very specific patterns though, and I like what those patterns have meant in terms of winning.

supafly · Jul 10, 2015

skinnydog said:
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.

Understanding that there may be a slight difference of opinions in terms of "all in," I certainly see both sides of the debate. That said, other than giving up the higher round pick for Welker, I don't really consider either one of Moss or Stallworth to have been examples of going "all in." I think the same could be said for guys like LaFell and Browner. They were the usual types of free agent pickups that we're used to seeing throughout the years. Once you add in a guy like Revis to the usual free agent period of 2014 or a guy like Welker in 2007, I think the argument becomes a bit stronger.

In other words, the combination of the players in 2007/2014 is what likely bolsters your stance, so Belichick has done an excellent job at his specific version of going all in, even if it doesn't equal the same allocation of resources/money that many other teams use. Either way, the results have been great!

Gumby · Jul 10, 2015

I don't think BB would ever go truly 'all-in' on the basis of any one player, even TB. However, let us not forget that with every extra year TB plays, BB ages. He has said he doesn't want to coach like Levy (into his 70s). So, there is a 50-50 shot IMO that he feels little organiztional respect for Kraft-poo and does go all in based on the confluence of multiple timed events....that he and TB ride into sunset together....leave the org a shambles for his successor.

But Shwach (weak in German is the opposite of power-Kraft ) dorked it all up anyway. You can't play all in / power broker missing 2 high draft picks for trade material /maneuver room.

If I had to put money down, I don't see it happening.

chasa · Jul 10, 2015

If the patriots win another title, Brady retires, and BB is almost done, i think he'd go all in for his last year and a chance at bringing home a 6th title for one team in addition to the two he got with the giants.

nabwong · Jul 10, 2015

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

I agreed to this but I truly believe Belichick plays for every year. The thing that people don't grasp is that he doesn't just builds a 53, he builds a 60-70 plus practice squad to account for trades and injuries (and in rare circumstances, criminals).

Look at some teams that have their seasons ended by 1 or 2 major injuries. So far, we've lost Brady, Mayo, Wilfork, Colvin, Gronk, Ridley, etc and we still compete at least 16 games.

ctpatsfan77 · Jul 10, 2015

skinnydog said:
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.

I guess that depends on your definition of "all in." As I see it, "all in" doesn't just mean putting a lot of money into a position/team, but doing it in such a way that there will be future repercussions for doing so. In other words, I consider "all in" to mean mortgaging the future for the present. And Belichick has never done that, AFAIK.

ctpatsfan77 · Jul 10, 2015

Gumby said:
I don't think BB would ever go truly 'all-in' on the basis of any one player, even TB. However, let us not forget that with every extra year TB plays, BB ages. He has said he doesn't want to coach like Levy (into his 70s). So, there is a 50-50 shot IMO that he feels little organiztional respect for Kraft-poo and does go all in based on the confluence of multiple timed events....that he and TB ride into sunset together....leave the org a shambles for his successor.

Since there's a good chance that successor will be within the organization, I rather doubt that any enmity he might feel toward Kraft would sway him into being a d—k toward his successor.

DarrylS · Jul 10, 2015

Perhaps it comes down to the definition of "all in", my view is that he does this every year by not overspending on a few players, but building a deep talented team. Knowing when to let go of a veteran, rather than keeping him too long...etc.

Do I expect him to divert from this winning formula.. absolutely not.

skinnydog · Jul 10, 2015

supafly said:
Understanding that there may be a slight difference of opinions in terms of "all in," I certainly see both sides of the debate. That said, other than giving up the higher round pick for Welker, I don't really consider either one of Moss or Stallworth to have been examples of going "all in." I think the same could be said for guys like LaFell and Browner. They were the usual types of free agent pickups that we're used to seeing throughout the years. Once you add in a guy like Revis to the usual free agent period of 2014 or a guy like Welker in 2007, I think the argument becomes a bit stronger.

In other words, the combination of the players in 2007/2014 is what likely bolsters your stance, so Belichick has done an excellent job at his specific version of going all in, even if it doesn't equal the same allocation of resources/money that many other teams use. Either way, the results have been great!

I don't disagree with that and I agree BB has never gone all in in the sense of mortgaging the future. But I these are two instances of him being very aggressive in the offseason (but in a smart way) and it certainly paid off. I guess picking picking up the Revis option for this year probably would have been considered going all in.

But as to the original question, the answer is no he won't go all in or he already would be doing so now. Brady's window is closing in the next few years and I don't see signs of loading up for the next 2-3 years.

Oswlek · Jul 10, 2015

skinnydog said:
I'd say they sort of did that last year and it paid off.

Nah. Revis was essentially a one year transition tag on a free agent who was perhaps the best player at his position in the entire league. Bill would take advantage of that every single year, if possible. No other signing breaks the mold, and those middling moves were supplemented by going after the cheaper LaFell and Chung over more costly options, as well as intentionally targeting 2015 and beyond players in the first two rounds of the draft.

skinnydog said:
They pretty much went all in on the wide receiver position in 2007 by bringing in Welker, Stallworth and Moss.

I'd disagree with this one as well. Welker was precisely the type of prospect that would thrive here and a layup trade no matter what situation the receiving corps was in. Moss was an arbitrage opportunity that cost next to nothing and Stallworth's contract was deceptively cheap for 2007.

I'll grant you that they invested more than usual, but that was a function of how bare the position was in 2006 than any "we have to win this year!" thought process.

Rob0729 · Jul 10, 2015

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
Let's not assume Belichick would make foolish moves like Elway. Mortgaging the future for the present doesn't always mean you are botching the present as well.

Free agency is a crap shoot no matter how you look at it. We have seen studs on one team get a big contract with another team and become ordinary. We have seen scrubs on one team become solid players when they sign with another.

tasmlab · Jul 10, 2015

Bill has been in "win now" mode for 15 years. He doesn't need to change his strategy, he's already got it.

The Red Skins approach doesn't work in the short term or the long term.

Sadly, when Brady's window is closing he might be traded to the Raiders, the Bucs or the Texans like everybody else not named Brown, Faulk or Bruschi.

I'm hoping for a storybook, fan aesthetic. Like maybe after lifting his sixth Lombardi, they rename the trophy the Belichick, and then Brady ascends directly into heaven without dying to become God's signal caller, where he quickly removes all evil from the world and creates everlasting peace.

AzPatsFan · Jul 10, 2015

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
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.

Nope !!!

libra957 · Jul 10, 2015

No! This team is built to make a serious run every other year, plus we just won the Superbowl so there is no need to anyway. Just give him time to recharge, I'm sure the pats will find their way back to the Superbowl very soon.

rdf63 · Jul 10, 2015

No. Coach Belicheck already has the foundation to compete next year for the Superbowl. The loss of Revis is tough but the Pats were planning for that last year. Remember the Pats were the youngest Superbowl winning team ever last year.

PatriotReign · Jul 11, 2015

If he wasn't willing to do it this year to keep Revis, Browner, Arrington, Vereen, and then trade future picks to stack the team further it will never happen.

Going all in is a dangerous gamble that I wouldn't be happy with. You get maybe 1-2 years of title contending and then the bills come due. If you're unable to win a championship or 2 in that window then your stuck in cap hell without high draft picks to acquire new talent, and your forced to let other players go because you can't afford to pay them. Also if a key component is lost for the season it's also a waste.

I'd rather have a slim chance to win it all every year then to mortgage the future and only slightly improve your odds.

supafly · Jul 11, 2015

PatriotReign said:
I'd rather have a slim chance to win it all every year then to mortgage the future and only slightly improve your odds.

This is how I feel as well. I think we have a decent chance of representing the AFC just about every year, assuming at least a WC spot. That makes the odds automatically around 16-17 percent, or 1/6.

Having that consistency should give us a better shot at winning championships, vs. going "all in" for one/two seasons followed by a significant drop in roster talent that would likely produce mediocre teams.

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

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

Eff you, Shula

Eff you, Shula

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Vice President of Boycott NFL Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

Starting QB, won 20 SBs, number is retired

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Practice Squad Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Eff you, Shula

Similar threads