Felger- Pats should lock up young talent

[qbert]

Exactly.

The missing ingredient in Felger's analysis is that these players do not care where they play. Doesn't matter at all. They don't care about winning. Or, their legacy in the game. Only one thing matters, show me the money. If the New Orleans Saints offer one penny more, they are gone.

The second part of this equation is that another team will always offer more money. It doesn't matter what the Pats offer. Whatever offer is made, the player's agent simply starts shopping that offer sheet around the league. Because the Pats are viewed as a winning organization, some fool GM, somewhere, will top the Pats offer. Short of just making absurd pre-emptive offers (like offering a mid-tier #1 possession receiver Marvin Harrison money), there is nothing the Pats can do to sign most of these players.

As fans, the only sane way to view the system is the way Belichick consistently explains it. It's like a college system. Bring 'em in. Get four years out of them. Bring in some new guys. Assume that all of them leave when their "eligibility" is up after four years and then you won't be surprised or disappointed. In the rare instance when a player actually values playing for a consistently competitive franchise or sees an opportunity to establish a long-term legacy, consider it a bonus and rejoice. But, don't count on it.

Of course, Daniel Graham will leave in free agency. That's the system. So what? He's not the last tight end who will ever play for the Pats. They didn't quit making tight ends the year he was drafted.

Yes this applies to the majority of NFL players and is evident in how they instruct their agents. But you do have to wonder, given the Branch, Givens, and now Watson situation whether the Pioli-Belichick management style just isn't earning any loyalty anymore in the locker room? For whatever reason. I am not pretending I know how things are run in the organization, but it seems that the Pats management culture is more dictatorial, frugal, and puts players in their "places", i.e. they are cogs in the machine (well, except for Brady, Seymour, and Harrison). Kind of like the corporate culture at a place like Intel.

The Steelers and Pats are competitive year-in and year-out, and have similar front-office shrewdness in terms of cap management and simply refusing to overpay for "potential" performance. But the Steelers were able to lock up Willie Parker and Ike Taylor before their contract year with less-than-market-value extensions. Jeff Hartings took a 50% pay cut in 2005 to help the cap and he is still a Pro Bowl center. Joey Porter barked about his contract but did not hold out after Cowher convinced him otherwise. Despite the Randle El's and Plaxico Burresses, the Steelers seem to be earning a little more loyalty from their Contract-1 players. Maybe the "corporate culture" makes a difference. It certainly would in any other industry.

 

[mgteich]

Felger brings up a good point for discussion, and gives his thoughts. That IS what he is paid to do. I know most here would prefer a dedicated homer who always agree with the FO.

RECOMMENDATION

Forget Felger, what is your recommendation for cap life under the new, ever-increasing cap?

Under the old cap, negotiating before the last year, or even during the last year seemed to make sense.

Now, PERHAPS, we should be looking to signing long-term extensions to top players with TWO years left in their rookie contract instead of one. In addition, there is indeed a premium for getting 1st rounders, since they will have 5-year contracts. For others, it does seem right to renegotiate after the league minimum of two years.

Does this make sense? Is it unreasonable? Is it an issue we shouldn't discuss.
Of course, the patriots may already be doing some of this. We're not discussing questioning the decisions of the FO (God forbid). Under the new agreement, now is not the time to extend Koppen, Samuel, Banta-Cain and Graham. We will if we can, but it is late in the game. Now is the time is to extend Wilson, Gay and Bruschi, and perhaps even Caldwell and/or Gabriel if they show anything by the bye week.

 

[hwc]

The Steelers lose more than their share of players to free agency. Every team does. It's inevitable due to the structure of the contracts and the salary cap. You MUST continually replace veteran player with lower cost young players.

The only reason we notice it more with the Pats is because we follow the Pats. And, to a degree, our players are in demand because the team has won three of the last five SuperBowls. Not only opposing GMs overestimate the value of our players; so do our players!

It's not like we don't pay top dollar. Look at Colvin's deal. Look at Vrabel's deal. Look at Corey Dillon's deal. Look at Brady's deal. Look at Seymour's deal.

We also keep our share of mid-pack starters: Light comes to mind.

 

[hwc]

For others, it does seem right to renegotiate after the league minimum of two years.

Only if you are willing to ignore the fundamental premise of Belichick's "college system" approach: the best value players in the NFL are players on their rookie contracts.

If you tear up the rookie deal after two years, you are throwing away two years of high-value production from a widget and replacing it with two-years of so-so or bad value from a widget. Sometimes, you just have to be happy with four years of value from a widget and then move on to the next widget.

There are few NFL widgets that have proven themselves to be likely 8 year starters by the end of their second year in the league.

Extend Wilson? OK. Maybe worth a try. Gay? Only at a favorable price. Replacing Gay's production in the draft is really not that difficult. He's a nickleback.

The smart approach? When you see the impending loss of a widget to free agency (Graham), draft Thomas and Mills. The pundits all go nuts wondering what in the world you are doing. But, you've just put yourself in a position carry on if you lose your TE widget. Let somebody else pay Graham Gonzales money to block well and catch a few passes.

 

[qbert]

The Steelers lose more than their share of players to free agency. Every team does. It's inevitable due to the structure of the contracts and the salary cap. You MUST continually replace veteran player with lower cost young players.

The only reason we notice it more with the Pats is because we follow the Pats. And, to a degree, our players are in demand because the team has won three of the last five SuperBowls. Not only opposing GMs overestimate the value of our players; so do our players!

It's not like we don't pay top dollar. Look at Colvin's deal. Look at Vrabel's deal. Look at Corey Dillon's deal. Look at Brady's deal. Look at Seymour's deal.

We also keep our share of mid-pack starters: Light comes to mind.

Not disagreeing with you, but you have to admit that the Patriots' turnover this year has been well above what any other well-managed "winning organization" has sustained, in recent years. It's not like the Steelers or Eagles free agents over the past few years were any less in demand.

You may get the best value from C1 players, but you can't field a championship team of just C1 players -- performance not value is the metric for success. And the best performance, on average, is from C2 players in their prime. I'm suggesting that other franchises like Pitt and Philly have more player-friendly cultures which translate directly into dollar savings at the negotiation table. Players want to keep playing there. The FOs are able to negotiate their high-performing Contract-1 players into reasonable or less-than-market-value Contract-2s, when they are RFAs or before their contract year is up. The Pats seem to be having less success at this given the recent string of defections.

 

[dhamz]

Not disagreeing with you, but you have to admit that the Patriots' turnover this year has been well above what any other well-managed "winning organization" has sustained, in recent years. It's not like the Steelers or Eagles free agents over the past few years were any less in demand.

It's a myth. The Patriots actually still have 16 of their 22 starters from the Super Bowl 2 years ago. The Eagles have 13. The Steelers have already lost 4 of their starting 22 from last year's game putting them well on pace to match the Pats 2 years out from the SB win.

 

[qbert]

It's a myth. The Patriots actually still have 16 of their 22 starters from the Super Bowl 2 years ago. The Eagles have 13. The Steelers have already lost 4 of their starting 22 from last year's game putting them well on pace to match the Pats 2 years out from the SB win.

Fair enough, I didn't research the Eagles turnover stats but remember them locking up their entire secondary to long term deals.

But you omitted the kicker, so the Pats lost 7 out of 23 starters since 2004, and most of those losses were this year. The Steelers lost only 3 starters from last year and all their current starters are locked up until the end of the 07 season.

 

[Hoodie]

I'm anxious to hear what Felger will say on Friday when ESPN does their little show from Foxboro. After a week of ripping them, I wonder if his tune will suddenly change as it did last week when he called Matt Light a "good, but not great lineman." Then Matt is on the show and he's the best lineman ever.

I hope one of the players punches him.