I think Tedy gets some ducats, demands or not, in his twilight years. Not exhorbitant dollars but enough to show that the Pats won't just take advantage of the guy who says he'll retire a Patriot. Green had a great 04 run, but he's not in Seymour's league as a full time starter. But for the next 10 years, you want Bruschi or Seymour? Bruschi's a three-year, maybe four-year issue. Tops. Not to take away anything from a guy that doesn't get slowed down by a stroke, and puts his money where his mouth is about team loyalty. But I don't think Sey can be evaluated vis a vis the voluntary choices of a Tedy Bruschi, and at this point, I do think Sey is the linchpin. By putting this in a 5-year perspective, it's not even an argument.
I think you misunderstood my point. I don't think we keep Bruschi beyond 2-3 years, (and I hope we part amicably in retirement on his terms) and that is the point. He will have to be replaced. Maybe that's Vrabel, or maybe not, but then Vrabel would need a Vrabel or TJ to play alongside. Replacing what a Tedy brings to this team could be costly. And Vrabel isn't that far behind him in age. So could replacing Harrison. The scheme truly revolves around intelligent and intuative LB and Safety play.
Yes we can afford to pay. No, that is not the sole determinant. But as valued as Seymour appears to be by others around the league, I'd argue once again that his known value is as a New England Patriot, and that it is high - as a New England Patriot. If anything, the unknown would be, say, plugging him into a 4-3. Does his deal wreck the model? No more than Brady's deal did. Pats of the future will ask, "Am I a McGinnest or a Seymour/Brady?" By the way, Brady's deal, as I understand it, was well into the elite tier in guaranteed money. He's not doing more with less compared with the majority of the league, just compared with Manning.
Again I think you misunderstand. He is doing more with less weapons than most, and at less cost than at least 2-3 of his so-called peers. I have not seen Seymour do more with less on any front. He has been surrounded by some outstanding defensive players whether they get to national kudos or not. When some were lost, I didn't see Richard carry this defense on his back ala Brady and a decimated offense. When Richard missed 5 weeks at the end of 2004, we rolled through the playoffs to the Superbowl. Last season I didn't see him make a tremendous difference either way (after his TC holdout in a season that was already due to be difficult because of Tedy's stroke and TJ's sudden retirement). The D struggled early with him, struggled without him, and got better gradually after a he and Tedy returned and Hawkins and Hobbs emerged and the aliens returned Asante to a secondary finally devoid of Starks down the stretch against less than the iron of the league.
Again, Brady didn't try to break the bank and top the most recent "most ever paid," but he did get elite salary. Hence the title question of this thread.
And if Richard is satisfied with an elite salary that makes him one of the top 3-5 players at his position - even if compared to DE's rather than DT's, that will be wonderful. I'm just not holding my breath because that will be well under the $8-8.5M you seem to think is his reasonable market based on league wide perception of his prodigious talent. And the perception seems to matter to Richard. All Brady cared about was being paid a reasonable amount so he could continue winning championships. He settled for 10-20% less that already highest paid, depending on how you measure it. Richard reportedly wants to be the newly highest paid.
Agreed. You have to be that valuable to the Patriots. Again, c.f. Tom Brady.
Last sentence is correct. Previous sentences...eh. You'll be paid what the Pats think you are worth in the NE context and setting. That may or may not exceed what you'll get elsewhere - often, it will be less. Givens is the perfect example. He was worth #2 money to us, and he wanted #1 money. Maybe more importantly, he wanted the #1 role. The fit was no longer right. I think with Seymour, the fit continues to be right unless the demands are beyond the neighborhood of the $8-8.5M average/annum figure. Others at the position are getting more, and Sey is considered the best at the position. At this point the Pats would be showing guaranteed money to offset "break-the-bank" totals over the life of the contract.
$8M-8.5M AAV per is the current highwater mark for DL. Whether or not Richard is a better or more talented player than the current compensation record holder is immaterial. He's probably overpaid. Brady is better than Manning and Vick and Palmer yet his deal averages $2-4M less by AAV and all important bonus monies over the first 3-4 seasons. Brady's signing bonus was split for a variety of reasons, philosophical and CBA related. In Richard's case you could add to the rationale for splits some valid durability concerns Brady has thus far escaped (no thanks to his Oline). If you heavily frontload Richards contract just to expend cap sooner rather than later, you run the risk of paying a steep price for a player who could easily miss enough starts over the next 3 seasons to cost you a playoff spot - particularly if paying him precluded upgrading and/or retaining key personnel at crucial positions throughout the remainder of your defense.
Here too I think we agree. What differs is where you put the reasonableness of the Brady contract versus the proposed (here, not by BB/SP) Seymour numbers. As for "adversely impact[ing] the salary scheme," I disagree that the (ballpark) 8M average does that. We can do it without screwing the model in the future, unless your sole point is the motivational/instructional value of tossing out people with high cap costs. I say, make that point with a McGinnest. Thank your lucky stars nobody's forcing the issue with a Bruschi. And when it comes to a Seymour, he comes out on the payable/should-be-paid end of the spectrum.
I 'm not sure we know eactly what the model is, but it obviously includes a slotted range for every position and for each unit. I think the real reason Givens was gone was because they saw both he and Branch as #2's (albeit Branch an elite 2 bordering #1 and Givens a quality #2 bordering elite so to speak). Brady allows them the flexibility to field a less expensive WR corps, although at this point they may be abusing that flexibility. Seymour would logically set the top mark in his position but also within the unit and across the board on defense. What others expect in a year or two or three will be reflective of what Seymuor gets, or if he gets it. Does he allow you to substantially scrimp on the rest of the defense? I don't think so based on what I've seen with and without him and at full strength as well as descimated by injuries. And letting aging vets go rather than overpaying them for sentimental value has nothing to do with the equation. In some respects it just makes the model harder to maintain because guys in their prime see there is no compensation golden parachute down the road, so unless you value winning championships and accumulating jewelry paid for by the Kraft family...
Of course, you could have argued against Brady's contract by predicting we'd have a Seymour issue down the road. To address the point on the table now, Seymour is gambling he's toward the Brady end of the spectrum, and that he can negotiate bigger dollars than, say, McGinnest. I think he's right.
Actually many here did argue just that. Not because of the contract value - that was the plus because Brady obviously took a good deal less. But many argued approaching him early would just lead Richard and others to expect the same treatment. And maybe it did. But again, I think they had a pecking order and Richard was not at the top of it. Brady as a consistently durable HOF franchise QB entering his prime was. Richard is a potential HOF DE/DT/Whatever in his prime, but there are a few more of those on the market in any given year either in the draft of as FA who with some scheme adaption (which is BB's forte - adapting the scheme to suit available talent) could work in this system possibly about as well as 93. (And again, not talking Jarvis Green here.) QB's just don't transition from the college ranks or from team to team anywhere near as predictably or consistently. The NFL is littered with the rotting corpses of failed highly touted QB prospects. It's a position where very few excell, a few more exist for a time as journeyman or JAG backups, but most are out of football (at least in this country) before you know it. That's why a guy like Flutie was able to make a roster at 43. QB's who can remotely function let alone excell at the NFL level are in short supply, and without a very good to great one all the DE's on the planet aren't generally going to carry a team to a Superbowl, let alone win 3 out of 5.
PFnV
