Belichick is rebuilding for 2012

[MoLewisrocks]

1.) They would have been able to re-sign both, unless Wilfork wants out. This is without question in an uncapped year.

2.) This "upcoming years" stuff needs to stop. The team just used a dozen draft picks and has multiple extra high round picks again next season. It didn't need the 1st rounder in 2011 at the expense of this year's team and the future services/compensation for Seymour that would also have followed this season. While it's true that you can sometimes ruin the future by focusing too much on the present, this has been a case of screwing the present by focusing too much on the future.

No they wouldn't because Bill and Kraft are also committed to not overpaying for talent absent a cap. And they obviously believe the cap will return come hell or high water because if it doesn't the NFL will become MLB. And they have several guys to extend including the HOF QB in the next 12 months. They will also only invest heavily in guys who are all in, and Seymour never was.

While they might tag Wilfork and eventually get a deal done as opposed to trading him, they were not going to tag Seymour because they did not believe he represented value at the $$ in the present or going forward compared to a top ten first round pick in a likely financially capped draft. We couldn't get pressure on Eli with a 3 or 4 man rush when Seymour was one of them two seasons ago. Ditto Vrabel. Ellis is on IR today and he was likely headed for there sooner or later. Would he have provided more value than Springs until he went down...well,duh.

These guys are good football businessmen as well as good gameday strategists. They are committed to a system that has led to consistently competitive football being played here for a approaching a decade now. They remember what this place was like when that wasn't the case. They are therefore committed to that remaining the MO. They understand that so much goes into the championship equation, as Brady's loss in week 1 of 2008 just underscored, that they choose to remain committed to their goal even if it royally pisses off an increasingly myopic spoiled fan base babbling about windows.

 

[The Dynasty]

Seymour was gone after this season anyway. The Pats realized that and got a Top-5 pick out of that.

Why you wouldn't want to sacrifice one season out of one player for a Top-5 pick is beyond me.

Completely agree, exactly what I am saying.

As for Deus, the Pats are not in the same era as the 49'ers so they cannot be compared. The Pats are the best team this century, better than the Colts. I dont understand why you think that Pats are screwing the present teams. You just cannot be the best team in the league every year, the NFL doesnt work that way. Being a playoff team year in and year out is very sucessful

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I didn't say they would. I said they could. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, the compensatory pick system remains in place even with the uncapped season. Therefore, if they'd let Seymour walk after this year, they'd have gotten compensation.



Anyone watching this team with an unbiased eye can see the impact of the player losses.

Vrabel had lost a step and then some. Seymour was inconsistent and hadn't been a difference maker at the price for 4 years. They signed him to an unusual 3 year extension for that reason, to continue evaluating his impact on and off the field. They moved on with one year left on the deal because it netted them an almost guaranteed top ten pick in an almost guaranteed rookie contract capped draft.

And FWIW if they presumed they would be impacted by the final 8 or final 4 playoff rules impacting FA in 2010, because that is always their goal, there is no way they get compensation for Seymour unless they choose not to sign a top FA in the only manner they'd be allowed to in the uncapped season.

 

[NEPatriot]

You can't have a bright future when you have a crappy present.

Bad drafts + Bad gambles + Sh11ty halftime adjustment = NO HOPE for a better FUTURE.

 

[Deus Irae]

No they wouldn't because Bill and Kraft are also committed to not overpaying for talent absent a cap. And they obviously believe the cap will return come hell or high water because if it doesn't the NFL will become MLB. And they have several guys to extend including the HOF QB in the next 12 months. They will also only invest heavily in guys who are all in, and Seymour never was.

You are confusing "Can" with "will". The ability to re-sign both absent some unreported issue with Wilfork is beyond question. The ability to franchise Seymour makes this a non-issue.

As for what they "obviously believe", there you go making assumptions again.

While they might tag Wilfork and eventually get a deal done as opposed to trading him, they were not going to tag Seymour because they did not believe he represented value at the $$ in the present or going forward compared to a top ten first round pick in a likely financially capped draft. We couldn't get pressure on Eli with a 3 or 4 man rush when Seymour was one of them two seasons ago. Ditto Vrabel. Ellis is on IR today and he was likely headed for there sooner or later. Would he have provided more value than Springs until he went down...well,duh.

With Seymour, again, that's "can" vs. "will", and they'd have gotten compensation for him after he signed elsewhere. Regarding Hobbs, you're going to equate an injury from one team to the other? Really? So, if Branch and Givens had stayed with the Patriots, they'd both have definitely still suffered career changing/ending injuries?

These guys are good football businessmen as well as good gameday strategists. They are committed to a system that has led to consistently competitive football being played here for a approaching a decade now. They remember what this place was like when that wasn't the case. They are therefore committed to that remaining the MO. They understand that so much goes into the championship equation, as Brady's loss in week 1 of 2008 just underscored, that they choose to remain committed to their goal even if it royally pisses off an increasingly myopic spoiled fan base babbling about windows.

These guys have not been good football businessmen or particularly good game day strategists this year. That's the point, really. I do find it ironic that as you withdraw further and further into your "BB is GOD!" shell, you are calling others myopic, though. By the way, the Red Sox were "always the bridesmaid and never the bride" for almost 100 years. The result of that has been the most powerful inferiority complex in all of American sports.

The goal of each individual season is to win the championship. The goal longterm is to be able to compete for the championship as often as possible. The key to front office success is a balancing of both drives. This year, the team went too far into the 'future' mode, needlessly, and it's having a major negative impact on the team's chances to win this season.

 

[Fencer]

Remember when people questioned BB using BP's players? Well, I'll say this. Outside of maybe Mayo for Bruschi, BB has absolutely stunk at finding their replacements. There's a reason this D has been soft since 2005. BB just doesn't have the horses anymore, and worse yet is incapable of finding them apparently.

YouHaveGotToBeKidding.

BB got the following stars from Parcells:

Law -- partially replaced by Asante
Milloy -- fully replaced by Rodney
Glenn -- eventually replaced by Moss, but it did take a while
Bruschi -- not a star under Parcells anyway; eventually replaced by Mayo
Brown -- not a star under Parcells anyway; eventually replaced by Welker
Bledsoe -- replaced by Brady; how did that work out?
Vinateri -- replaced by Gostowski
Faulk -- not a star under Parcells; still here

Your beef with that track record is -- what?

 

[Deus Irae]

Vrabel had lost a step and then some. Seymour was inconsistent and hadn't been a difference maker at the price for 4 years. They signed him to an unusual 3 year extension for that reason, to continue evaluating his impact on and off the field. They moved on with one year left on the deal because it netted them an almost guaranteed top ten pick in an almost guaranteed rookie contract capped draft.

Seymour was the team's best defensive player. He was the only defensive lineman that warranted double teams on both passing and running downs. He had 8 sacks as a DE in a two-gap 3-4, and actually led the team in sacks last season. How is that not a "difference maker"?

As for Vrabel, he'd be a significant improvement over Burgess, and he's far better against the run than TBC. Then again, I have pet fish that would be significant improvements over Burgess, to this point in the season.

And FWIW if they presumed they would be impacted by the final 8 or final 4 playoff rules impacting FA in 2010, because that is always their goal, there is no way they get compensation for Seymour unless they choose not to sign a top FA in the only manner they'd be allowed to in the uncapped season.

From everything I've seen, read and heard, they'd have gotten compensation for Seymour. If you've got something which shows otherwise, I'd love to see it. BTW, if your assertion is that they might lose compensation if they signed a 'top' FA, think that through for a bit, and you'll see why that would make for an even bigger negative grade when it comes to evaluating the trade.

 

[The Dynasty]

Seymour was the team's best defensive player. He was the only defensive lineman that warranted double teams on both passing and running downs. He had 8 sacks as a DE in a two-gap 3-4, and actually led the team in sacks last season. How is that not a "difference maker"?

As for Vrabel, he'd be a significant improvement over Burgess, and he's far better against the run than TBC. Then again, I have pet fish that would be significant improvements over Burgess, to this point in the season.

Seymour was not the best defensive player, he was overrated and incredibly inconsistant and was injury prone as well. I dont think he was being doubled in his last year here, teams realized that he wasnt as good as they and people made him out to be.

Vrabel is too old, way too slow. Vrabel is 34, TBC is 29. Our defensive is trying to get younger, and keeping Vrabel would be going against that therory.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

YouHaveGotToBeKidding.

BB got the following stars from Parcells:

Law -- partially replaced by Asante
Milloy -- fully replaced by Rodney
Glenn -- eventually replaced by Moss, but it did take a while
Bruschi -- not a star under Parcells anyway; eventually replaced by Mayo
Brown -- not a star under Parcells anyway; eventually replaced by Welker
Bledsoe -- replaced by Brady; how did that work out?
Vinateri -- replaced by Gostowski
Faulk -- not a star under Parcells; still here

Your beef with that track record is -- what?

Faulk was never a Parcells player, Carroll drafted him in '99.

 

[condon84]

The team did have the right players, and Belichick traded them away, needlessly. The team already had plenty of picks in the draft, and it didn't need the one it got for Seymour in order to maintain a competitive advantage. In fact, those who are singing the "need the picks for the future" were singing a very different tune when Belichick pissed away a 3rd and a 5th to get Burgess. Those two deals with the Raiders have turned out to be:

Burgess
2011 first round draft pick

for

Seymour
2010 3rd round draft pick
2010 5th round draft pick
Loss of any Seymour compensation moving forward

Couple those moves with the trading of Hobbs and Vrabel, and one can see that the system actually put the defense in a position to fail this season, in a year when the QB was returning from a major injury. It's not knee jerk to point this out and question it. It's what every fan should be doing, because the moves were mistakes, either in general or in compensation.

As for the window, it's been slowly closing since 2004, as the players who got the team to the Super Bowls have been moving on, and Brady has gotten older. NFL history has shown that teams don't compete consistently without top quality quarterbacks.

I agreed with you until the Hobbs part. Good KR, but was horrible as a CB. And if you really do like Hobbs, you must have liked what Wilhite showed yesterday.

I do agree with most of your breakdown. I'd like to add that the compensation we received for Vrabel and Cassel from KC was criminal.

Another issue I have with BB is the resigning of some of our drafted players. Yes, continuity is good, but if it's mediocre continuity, why not try to upgrade? Sanders, Koppen, Kazcur are all prime examples.

 

[JackBauer]

Another issue I have with BB is the resigning of some of our drafted players. Yes, continuity is good, but if it's mediocre continuity, why not try to upgrade? Sanders, Koppen, Kazcur are all prime examples.

Because this isn't Madden and it's just not possible to not have mediocre players at some positions. This is a team, after all, that won with Brandon Gorin and Tom Ashworth at RT.

 

[condon84]

Because this isn't Madden and it's just not possible to not have mediocre players at some positions. This is a team, after all, that won with Brandon Gorin and Tom Ashworth at RT.

Brandon Gorin and Tom Ashworth did their jobs better than what Koppen, Kazcur, and Sanders have been giving us the past two years. I understand that you can't have all pros everywhere, but these guys are not reliable and signing them to those types of contracts is not good business.

 

[Deus Irae]

Seymour was not the best defensive player, he was overrated and incredibly inconsistant and was injury prone as well. I dont think he was being doubled in his last year here, teams realized that he wasnt as good as they and people made him out to be.

Vrabel is too old, way too slow. Vrabel is 34, TBC is 29. Our defensive is trying to get younger, and keeping Vrabel would be going against that therory.

Seymour was the team's best defensive player last season, and he was the only player that was high quality against both the run and the pass.

As for your response regarding the Vrabel move, feel free to explain Burgess and Springs within that context.

 

[JackBauer]

Brandon Gorin and Tom Ashworth did their jobs better than what Koppen, Kazcur, and Sanders have been giving us the past two years. I understand that you can't have all pros everywhere, but these guys are not reliable and signing them to those types of contracts is not good business.

Apparently we remember events differently. I don't know what your beef is with Sanders, but he is a solid player. And I'd rather have Koppen and Kaczur than Ashworth and Gorin.

 

[The Dynasty]

Seymour was the team's best defensive player last season, and he was the only player that was high quality against both the run and the pass.

As for your response regarding the Vrabel move, feel free to explain Burgess and Springs within that context.

Mayo was our best defensive player last year, not Seymour.

In that context with Springs and Burgess you are right. How much as Springs played this year though? Burgess can rush the pass better than Vrabel can at this point in their careers though

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It's nice to be competitive indefinitely. But being a 2nd tier contender indefinitely wouldn't be worth it.

Not sure what that means.

Let's look at two Franchises that would be on any knowledgeable person's shortlist for the top five NFL Franchises of all time.

The Cowboys have been to 24 Championship Games (16 CG's and eight SB's) and have five Lombardi's. No team has been to more championship Games and only the Steelers have won more. Yet, between 1982 and 1992, they didn't get to the Conference Championship even once and they now haven't been back since 1995. Would you define those interims as "being a 2nd tier contender indefinitely?" I have to say I wouldn't and that I would have been frustrated but proud to be a fan of a Franchise with that pedigree, knowing that our day will come again.

The Steelers have been to 21 Championship Games (14 CG's and seven SB's) and have six Lombardi's. Yet, between 1984 and 1994, they never went to a Conference Championship. Bill Cowher took his teams to six CG's, lost four of them and won one of the two SB's he reached. How do you define that? Once again, I'd define the down years as frustrating but would still free pride in supporting so great a franchise.

You see, I think that Bob Kraft understands that. I think he wants the Pats to be a Franchise like the Cowboys or Steelers. With a commitment to excellence, but the awareness that there are going to be famines as well as feasts. We're coming off of seven years of feasts in which we went to five CG's, four SB's and took home three big hunks of bling. It ain't always gonna be like that. For one thing, luck plays a big role in how the cards fall. And, guys like Chuck Noll and Tom Landry and Bill Belichick come along about as often as guys like Terry Bradshaw and Roger Staubach and Tom Brady.

So, when B and B are no longer with the Pats and when we don't have guys of their caliber in those jobs, are you going to say that cheering for the Pats isn't "worth it?" If so, we have a very different idea of this game and the NFL>

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

"Belichick is rebuilding for 2012"........How many years have people on this board been saying this? The problem with this is that BB has actually been delaying rebuilding this team as he constantly trades down and trades out for future picks. How many years have we been begging the Pats to take a LB in the draft? Instead they take random guy and trade their other top picks for the following year. This year is a prime example, the Pats had the ammo to take just about anybody in the draft as they had the most picks out of any team. Instead they trade out of the first round, gain two 2nd round picks and a 3rd round pick and trade that 3rd for a 2nd round pick next season. It's great that the Pats upgraded the 3rd for a 2nd next season, but my point is they keep delaying the future.

 

[Deus Irae]

Mayo was our best defensive player last year, not Seymour.

Mayo wasn't even the team's second best defensive player last season. That honor goes to Wilfork.

In that context with Springs and Burgess you are right. How much as Springs played this year though? Burgess can rush the pass better than Vrabel can at this point in their careers though

Springs is getting paid a fair sum of money to not play. How is that not being pointed out by even those defending Belichick to the death? (disclaimer: I've never been a huge Springs fan, but I had no real problem with the move. I considered it an upgrade over the #2s of last year. I think it's a bad signing in conjunction with the Hobbs trade, but I was fine with it on its own. It's been a mistake in hindsight, but I understood it at the time.)

I'd take Vrabel over Burgess 24/7/365. What's more, if they'd kept Vrabel and Seymour, they could still be running more 3-4 defense, which is more suited for the players on the defensive line. Instead, in a season with major changeover in the front office and at offensive coordinator, the coach decided to add "defensive scheme change and massive personnel overhaul" to his already overloaded plate, to forego bringing in someone to help with the offense, to sit Brady in preseason when he could have been playing him, and to cut bait with a receiver rather than finding a way to make it work by using some of his trademark adaptation.

The result is a team that could have been a Super Bowl favorite, but is, instead, a back of the line playoff team right now.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Mayo was our best defensive player last year, not Seymour.

In that context with Springs and Burgess you are right. How much as Springs played this year though? Burgess can rush the pass better than Vrabel can at this point in their careers though

I agree with Deus, Seymour was their best player. In fact, Seymour was the only player that could pass rush for a team that had crappy LB's. What does that tell you? It tells me it's pretty pathetic when a 3-4 D-lineman leads your team with sacks. While Mayo was good, he was pretty one dimensional.

 

[condon84]

Apparently we remember events differently. I don't know what your beef is with Sanders, but he is a solid player. And I'd rather have Koppen and Kaczur than Ashworth and Gorin.

I have no beef with Sanders, he's just not a good player. He doesn't belong out there with the starters and is now our 4th safety and mostly playing ST where he truly belongs. So my issue is that we signed him to a $3 million a year contract where we should have used the money elsewhere.

Teams have been taking advantage of Koppen on running plays. I don't know if he's been injured the past two years, but he doesn't hold the point of attack too well. Maroney has been hit in the backfield by Koppen's guy too often.