- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Messages
- 19,929
- Reaction score
- 3
Brady is the one player the offense is built around. Without Brady we have many good players, but it would be tough to claim that any of them could carry this team as well as Brady does.
The defense as it is currently structured is missing that key player. The one who influences how the defense is assembled and what kind of scheme it runs. Yeah, its not reasonable to claim that any one positions on defense is as influential as the QB when it comes to winning games, but in that same breath if any one of those positions had player worth building around, the defense as a whole would improve greatly.
Every position on the defense has the capacity to disrupt a QB's/ RB's timing. One great player on defense will achieve more opportunities to disrupt that timing. Finding that player is like finding a franchise QB.
And swinging for the fences and missing on that player on defense is akin to swinging and missing on a franchise QB. The last impact players like that we hit it out of the park on were Seymour in his youth via the draft and Rodney and Vrabel in FA off the scrap heap. A costly swing and miss would be Adalius. In the long run Bill got more value out of Rodney and Vrabel because they didn't cost him a top draft pick (or any actually) or the big bucks and they pretty much played out their best days here. Seymour was fine under the circumstances because they didn't have to trade up for him, they were that bad the pick was there. And they got value out of him commensurate with what they paid him for most of his rookie deal. After that it got a little dicey.
Had we gone after lets say Peppers in FA at the expense of retaining Wilfork or Mayo or traded up in the draft to secure that guy on defense at the expense of say the pairing of young pro bowl caliber TE's not to mention a LT for the future (and jack of all trades for the present) - how much better than 13-3 and HFA throughout would we be today? I realize if you ascribe to the Michael Felger school of capology the argument would be you can have it all. And he would point to teams like the JETS and the Eagles and the Bears and a host of others who aren't in the playoffs this season and whose decisionmakers are straddling the hot seat if not shuffling to the unemployment line already because he's an idiot... There have been many pissing contests and fiery debates here over the last decade about whose approach to roster building is the best. One consistent contender is now a former GM and team president after just one colossal losing season in a decade.
Peppers deal averages almost $16M per plus incentives and was compared to Haynesworth's $18M deal in Washington that netted each team about the same results...same results the Panthers reaped from tagging him multiple years...NOTHING. I don't know but maybe the lesson if there is one to be learned is maybe you could have achieved more had you spent that money more wisely and spread it out in an effort to build aand maintain a deeper overall team. I know Bill is tempted at times, talent is seductive, but he seems to hold true to his convictions at the end of the day and while we don't win 'em all we win and contend more consistently than anyone else...over the course of a decade.