Can we now stop with: "being 6 million under the cap is wonderful"?

[MDD]

You overpay one guy by 20%, the other 52 will expect to be overpayed by 20% also. The Patriots are just like any other work place. When the players see others making a disproportionate amount of money, they want their share also.

Why are we putting the cart before the horse? Like Bruschi's gonna be pissed that a 12 year vet and cornerstone of the franchise (McGinest) was going to make 1 million more than him?

They were 750k apart with Law. Yeah, that extra 750k would have caused a revolt.

 

[Stokes]

Not sure where you get that 750K figure on McGinest, he got somewhere around 3 years, 12 million from Cleveland, with 6 million guaranteed. No way the Pats were close to that figure. If the point you are making is that the Pats are too old, why is your solution to sign 2 guys on the downside of their careers (Law/McGinest) for more money than they are worth? If their business model has netted 3 titles, and the one time they really deviated from that model (signing Colvin for big money, 5/$25 or something?) they got burned, why would they go that way again? Colvin has been good, but nowhere near the player they thought they would get for that amount of $. The team was flat yesterday, let's not confuse that with a lack of talent. Looking at the roster by position, the Pats have the best D-line in the league, a good, young, signed O-line, maybe the best group of RBs in the league, and one of the best if not the best QB in the league. Find another roster with as much talent top to bottom and maybe I'll listen. Until then maybe you should spend your energy learning about the game rather than complaining about a 9-3 team.

 

[MDD]

Not sure where you get that 750K figure on McGinest, he got somewhere around 3 years, 12 million from Cleveland, with 6 million guaranteed.

I said Law.

If the point you are making is that the Pats are too old, why is your solution to sign 2 guys on the downside of their careers (Law/McGinest) for more money than they are worth?

I also said that if you elect to go old then you need reinforcements.

If their business model has netted 3 titles, and the one time they really deviated from that model (signing Colvin for big money, 5/$25 or something?) they got burned, why would they go that way again?

You gotta be kidding me. He's been great for us the last two seasons. He held his own in 2004 while still recovering from a very serious injury. I'm sure he's sorry he broke his hip.

Colvin is the example of what we SHOULD be doing. Bite the bullet a little bit for smart, talented guys who may not make the pro bowl every year but are solid, flexible, smart contributors to the team.

 

[RayClay]

Originally Posted by RayClay
By the way, we need to immediately double the salaries of Chad Scott and Artrell Hawkins. At least.

Everybody knows you can't get veteran cornerbacks , (who can also play safety), without breaking the bank.

They're going to realize this soon also and revert to the type of washed up hacks you can expect to find as street free agents.

180 degrees from what I said, but thanks.

ORLY?

You can throw me any statistic you want. yesterday I saw a team that lacked talented depth in key positions.

2001 was a once-in-a-lifetime season, yet this front office thinks it can follow the same model, using retreads and castoffs to plug holes.

In 2003 and 2004 we made some wise investments that paid off. Heading 2003 was Harrison, who had three less years on him. Heading 2004 were Dillon (ditto) and Colvin (who was signed the previous season but whose first full season was '04).

In contrast, in the last two years, the front office has reacted as if we needed another cap purge like in 2000. Yet we didn't. The FA signings the last two seasons have been of the "band-aid" variety. The reliance on Chad Scott, Heath Evans, and Monty Biesel bring back memories of Fred Coleman, Bert Emmanuel, and Matt Stevens.

Injuries are a factor, but at least on the defensive side, when the 34 year old Harrison gets back he's going to be the 34-year old Harrison. What other "major" injury problems have we had? You can only blame injuries so much for us executing like crap (what, you thought Seau was going to last 16 games playing close to full time?).

You can beat chokers like Kordell Stewart (2001) with band-aids. To beat LT, Rivers, and Gates, or Manning, Harrison and Wayne, you need talent. We don't have enough of it.

................

 

[mgcolby]

You can throw me any statistic you want. yesterday I saw a team that lacked talented depth in key positions.

2001 was a once-in-a-lifetime season, yet this front office thinks it can follow the same model, using retreads and castoffs to plug holes.

In 2003 and 2004 we made some wise investments that paid off. Heading 2003 was Harrison, who had three less years on him. Heading 2004 were Dillon (ditto) and Colvin (who was signed the previous season but whose first full season was '04).

In contrast, in the last two years, the front office has reacted as if we needed another cap purge like in 2000. Yet we didn't. The FA signings the last two seasons have been of the "band-aid" variety. The reliance on Chad Scott, Heath Evans, and Monty Biesel bring back memories of Fred Coleman, Bert Emmanuel, and Matt Stevens.

Injuries are a factor, but at least on the defensive side, when the 34 year old Harrison gets back he's going to be the 34-year old Harrison. What other "major" injury problems have we had? You can only blame injuries so much for us executing like crap (what, you thought Seau was going to last 16 games playing close to full time?).

You can beat chokers like Kordell Stewart (2001) with band-aids. To beat LT, Rivers, and Gates, or Manning, Harrison and Wayne, you need talent. We don't have enough of it.

Just curious did you watch the 2003 New England Patriots beat a bad Browns team in Foxboro by the whopping score of 9-3?

 

[MDD]

ORLY?



................

There's a difference between "old" and "band-aid". Ty Law's old. Chad Scott's a band-aid. The former had market interest, the latter was off the scrap heap.

But in a worst case scenario, if you DO rely on the Chad Scotts of the world, you need to make sure you have reinforcements. THAT was my point.

 

[MDD]

Just curious did you watch the 2003 New England Patriots beat a bad Browns team in Foxboro by the whopping score of 9-3?

Actually I was at that game. The fake punt sticks out in my memory.

If we beat the Lions 9-3 in a slugfest, like in that Cleveland game, I'd feel a lot better. Instead you had Jon Freaking Kitna marching up and down the field with Josh McCown and Mike Furey prominently involved.

 

[RayClay]

There's a difference between "old" and "band-aid". Ty Law's old. Chad Scott's a band-aid. The former had market interest, the latter was off the scrap heap.

But in a worst case scenario, if you DO rely on the Chad Scotts of the world, you need to make sure you have reinforcements. THAT was my point.

I've got to give you credit, you're sticking to your argument.

When you can dispute a post that's only direct quotes and an ORLY, that's tenacity.

 

[DaBruinz]

The primary thing I would have done differently? If you're going to go old at key positions in the defensive backfield and linebacker then sign a lot of them.

You swallow your pride and bring back McGinest and Law. God forbid: 1.) you overpay someone by 20%, or 2.) you're only FOUR million under the cap.

Just a few things that its clear you don't know.

1) The Patriots DID attempt to re-sign Ty Law. You'd know that if you were following the team. Law was offered the same money by the Pats and Law chose to go to KC to be with the Herm "I can't manage the clock" Edwards.

2) The Patriots attempted to re-do McGinest's contract prior to letting him go. McGinest turned it down. The McGinest put on this big show of "disrespect" of the Patriots not talking to him after that. Well, that blew up in his face when it was learned that the Patriots had been having DAILY conversations with him.

3) The Patriots attempted to treat Deion Branch the way they had treated Tom Brady and Richard Seymour when the Pats signed them to contract extensions on their rookie contracts. Deion felt he was too good for that and chose to hold out.

I mentioned Deion because until that situation played itself out, the Patriots had money set aside for him. The same with Ty Law who signed with the Chiefs on July 24th. By the time those decisions were done, the Pats were left holding the short end of the stick and 10 million in their pocket.

Now, can you please explain how having McGinest in a Patriots uniform would help this team cope with the lack of ILBs?

Having Law would help with the injuries in the backfield. Well, except if you look to see that Law, himself, was injured the last 2 years he was with the Pats.

The Pats used a good chunk of the money they had to give Dan Koppen a contract extension. We also know that Samuel and Graham have been approached about contract extensions. They could easily use up the money they have left there.

Oh, one last thing, the Patriots DID sign some DBs. Mel Mitchell and Tebucky Jones. Both of whom ended up on the IR through no fault of their own.

One thing you need to remember is that Belichick and Pioli are NOT fortune tellers and can't see the future. There was no way to know that both Mitchell and Jones would go down to injury. There was no way to know that Randall Gay would be lost to injury. There was no way to know that Harrison and Seau would go down to injury.

So, knowing all this, what would you have done differently? Who would you have attempted to sign? Make sure you consider what that person signed for and the impact it would have on this team.

 

[DaBruinz]

AGAIN, why is it all or nothing with some of you?

Maybe that is the way you have basically presented it. You don't come across as having a good grasp on the Salary Cap or an understanding of how signing one player affects the signing of others.

Also, you come across as not having a good grasp of the bigger picture.

 

[DaBruinz]

Actually I was at that game. The fake punt sticks out in my memory.

If we beat the Lions 9-3 in a slugfest, like in that Cleveland game, I'd feel a lot better. Instead you had Jon Freaking Kitna marching up and down the field with Josh McCown and Mike Furey prominently involved.

Who was supposed to be covering Mike Furry on the 1st TD?

Jon Kitna is not a bad QB. No, he's not in the class of Brady and Manning, but he's also not in the class with Ryan Leaf and Tim Couch.

The Lions are rebuilding. They are hungry and Marinelli is doing a damn good job of getting them up to be spoilers. It was plain to see that the team was flat and didn't play up to its capability. However, injuries are taking their toll. Kevin Faulk is NOT Laurence Maroney when it comes to kick-offs. And Hansen's kicks were High, but short, giving the Lions special teams a chance to get down and cover.

Reality? Any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday.

Oh, yeah, and the refs in the game seemed to have it in for the Pats, but that is another story.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

There's a difference between "old" and "band-aid". Ty Law's old. Chad Scott's a band-aid. The former had market interest, the latter was off the scrap heap.

But in a worst case scenario, if you DO rely on the Chad Scotts of the world, you need to make sure you have reinforcements. THAT was my point.

The gist of your argument seems to be, "Throw money at 'em! That'll solve a lot of our problems!"

Not everyone out there can play this system. In the past, the Pats have brought in that, on paper, seemed to be quite good FAs. Not all have worked out because they weren't the type of player for the system.

Before you think of reinforcements, you have to have the starters signed and out there playing.

Willie had great, great years for us, but his best days are clearly behind him. Law, too, did great things for the Pats, but he's an aging mercenary now. If you want to live in the past, that's exactly where you're going to end up.

And talent's not all it's cracked up to be. How many rings have those talented groups such as LT, Rivers and Gates, or Manning, Wayne and Harrison won? Quite apart from asking who the defending Super Bowl champs are, maybe you should look with some wonder on the collapse of the "talented" Denver Broncos. (Actually, they're not that talented - they just thought they were...)

Spend some time studying the game before making inane posts like this....

 

[MDD]

Just a few things that its clear you don't know.

1) The Patriots DID attempt to re-sign Ty Law. You'd know that if you were following the team. Law was offered the same money by the Pats and Law chose to go to KC to be with the Herm "I can't manage the clock" Edwards.

The Chiefs offered him a slightly richer deal - difference of about 750k. That's why he's there.

The Patriots attempted to re-do McGinest's contract prior to letting him go. McGinest turned it down. The McGinest put on this big show of "disrespect" of the Patriots not talking to him after that. Well, that blew up in his face when it was learned that the Patriots had been having DAILY conversations with him.

I agree - this would have been tougher to pull out, but see below comment.

The Patriots attempted to treat Deion Branch the way they had treated Tom Brady and Richard Seymour when the Pats signed them to contract extensions on their rookie contracts. Deion felt he was too good for that and chose to hold out.

Find where I criticized their handling of the Branch situation. I agree with this call.

Now, can you please explain how having McGinest in a Patriots uniform would help this team cope with the lack of ILBs?

Yeah boy, I'm an idiot. I mean, it's not like we have a starting OLB having to shift to ILB or anything like that.

The Pats used a good chunk of the money they had to give Dan Koppen a contract extension. We also know that Samuel and Graham have been approached about contract extensions. They could easily use up the money they have left there.

And if they do, then I will recant my opinion.

Oh, one last thing, the Patriots DID sign some DBs. Mel Mitchell and Tebucky Jones. Both of whom ended up on the IR through no fault of their own.

And both of whom were designated as special teamers from the outset.

So, knowing all this, what would you have done differently? Who would you have attempted to sign? Make sure you consider what that person signed for and the impact it would have on this team.

I realize the "disrespect" thing that players claim is a load of crap. At the same time you suck it up and realize that overpaying someone by 10%-20% does not instantly turn you into the 49ers, Titans, or Redskins.

 

[MDD]

You know, a couple posters on this thread claim I know nothing about the game because I say this team didn't play well yesterday. If you are such experts then maybe they should fire the AP writers, and every columnist and beat writer at the Herald and Globe, and hire you to take their place, since I guess those 8-9 guys are all know-nothings too.

 

[DaBruinz]

The Chiefs offered him a slightly richer deal - difference of about 750k. That's why he's there.

Care to provide a link? You've said that a couple of times now, yet you haven't provided any proof. Also, how do you know whether or not the Patriots deal didn't have bonuses in it that would have greatly outwieghed that 750K?

I agree - this would have been tougher to pull out, but see below comment.


Find where I criticized their handling of the Branch situation. I agree with this call.

Never said you criticized the handling of the Branch situation. I mentioned it to give you some perspective on how the Patriots had money tied up prior to the start of the season. Money they had committed, but couldn't spend until the situations played themselves out.

Heck, I didn't even mentioned the bonus they had to pay to Seymour and the fact that they could have handled it one of 2 ways. They handled its by making it a signing bonus instead of a roster bonus.

Yeah boy, I'm an idiot. I mean, it's not like we have a starting OLB having to shift to ILB or anything like that.

Gotta love people who call themselves names and pretend like someone else said it. I asked how how having McGinest would have helped the Patriots ILB situation and all you can do is come back with a dumb arse remark instead of providing your opinion. Guess you don't have one.

And if they do, then I will recant my opinion.

So, you're whining is about the fact that they didn't use up most of the money prior to the start of the season? Since you missed it in my previous post, let me spell it out here. The Patriots, had they signed Law and Branch, wouldn't have been 14 million over the cap prior to the start of the season. They probably would have been less than 4 million over the cap. The likelyhood that they could have given Koppen an extension is there, but very small. And they wouldn't be able to talk extension with Graham and Samuel prior to them reaching free agency the way they are able to now.

And both of whom were designated as special teamers from the outset.

Both of whom have been starters and would have been behind Wilson and Harrison in the event they got hurt. You were whining about "not having reinforcements" yet, they did have them.

I realize the "disrespect" thing that players claim is a load of crap. At the same time you suck it up and realize that overpaying someone by 10%-20% does not instantly turn you into the 49ers, Titans, or Redskins.

And that is the crux of the issue. Once you start over-paying players, its very hard to stop. All you have to do is look at how Booby Grier and Andy W. handled this team prior to Belichick coming in and you'd know that. Paying absurd money to guys like Max Lane and Todd Rucci just because they were Bledsoe's buddies.

 

[MDD]

That's my point. You don't turn into Bobby Grier by overpaying players a little bit. What is it, like smoking, or drug addiction, or eating potato chips? You can't stop once you try a little? Come on.

And that is the crux of the issue. Once you start over-paying players, its very hard to stop. All you have to do is look at how Booby Grier and Andy W. handled this team prior to Belichick coming in and you'd know that. Paying absurd money to guys like Max Lane and Todd Rucci just because they were Bledsoe's buddies.

I trust this group enough to not pull a Lane and Rucci. Besides, Lane/Rucci didn't kill us. They were a couple mil a year - five year deals. What killed us in the late 90's was draft mismanagement, not FA signings.

 

[Stokes]

I said Law.



I also said that if you elect to go old then you need reinforcements.



You gotta be kidding me. He's been great for us the last two seasons. He held his own in 2004 while still recovering from a very serious injury. I'm sure he's sorry he broke his hip.

Colvin is the example of what we SHOULD be doing. Bite the bullet a little bit for smart, talented guys who may not make the pro bowl every year but are solid, flexible, smart contributors to the team.

Sorry, thought you were talking about Willie, although for Law as well seems like the 2 sides were also far apart, more than $750K. Any backup for that figure (just curious)? As for Rosie, I disagree with your assessment of his play. Obviously you can't blame the guy for getting hurt, and yes, he was slowed significantly in 2004 from that. However, knowing how often big injuries happen like that should factor into decisions about giving out huge contracts. The Pats are doing it when they have to, to keep the best player at his position in the league: Brady, (even though he signed for less than Manning/Vick, they would have paid any amount to keep him), and Seymour. Colvin was never considered the best OLB in the league, yet they gave him one of the richer contracts for any OLB. As for his 2005/2006, I'd say he's been nowhere near excellent. He has shown flashes of great play, but overall has been very inconsistent in my opinion. Spending that kind of money for guys that are good but not great will eventually turn this team into the Washington Redskins. All that being said I of course agree with you that they should spend to the cap this year, though they still have time to do so, and would be best served by either locking up some upcoming free agents (Graham, Samuel, etc), or, if possible, using that money to pay off a contract that yields a high cap number in the future (like Seymour) in the form of a roster bonus.

 

[Rob0729]

It isn't about the $6 million. It is about the long term ramifications of overpaying players because you have cap room. You start paying players just because you have cap space, then you gotta start to pay players all the time. You overpay for McGinest and then when someone else's contract is up or becomes unbearable and needs to be renegotiated they will ask for McGinest type premiums. The Pats are thinking long term and not just this year.

I do think the Pats misjudged the market because of the increase in the cap and lost out on some free agents, but I don't think the Pats should have changed their overall philosophy. I don't think they will make the same mistake this offseason.

The Pats system has some flaws and can potentially cause a down year or two much like the Steelers. But the Pats' way of doing thing almost guarantees the Pats will be a consistent contender.

 

[MDD]

It isn't about the $6 million. It is about the long term ramifications of overpaying players because you have cap room. You start paying players just because you have cap space, then you gotta start to pay players all the time. You overpay for McGinest and then when someone else's contract is up or becomes unbearable and needs to be renegotiated they will ask for McGinest type premiums. The Pats are thinking long term and not just this year.

I do think the Pats misjudged the market because of the increase in the cap and lost out on some free agents, but I don't think the Pats should have changed their overall philosophy. I don't think they will make the same mistake this offseason.

The Pats system has some flaws and can potentially cause a down year or two much like the Steelers. But the Pats' way of doing thing almost guarantees the Pats will be a consistent contender.

Finally a fair, sensible, rebuttal.

 

[shmessy]

MDD, I empathize with your frustration, but I believe uyou're missing one very important point when you ask "Why is it all or nothing?"

The answer is that the Pats intend to spend it all. Miguel or someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I know I saw some info on this board a few months ago that said that the team has until March of NEXT YEAR to use their cap space to accelerate the guaranteed money portions owed over the lives of contracts (i.e. to Brady and Seymour).

If BB felt he needed the AVAILABLE talent on the market right now, he and Pioli would go out and get it. My guess is that BB feels he can coach up what he has to improve while waiting for the two starting safeties to come back from injured list They work too damn hard and have too narrow lives to be half-arsing it.