Former Patriots and "home town" discount

[mgteich]

aj, miguel and I all support the cap managment strategies of the patriots. I guess that's all that matters.

I guess that in the end, what Lurie does or doesn't do is off-topic.

One on-topic discussion that we will have in hundreds of threads in the next eight months is the use of roster spots.

Every year, a team must make choices. Sometimes, your choices are better in hindsight, sometimes not. For example:

RISKS WE TOOK

1) We decided to go with Klecko, Wright and Hill as our backup DL's. We lost a couple of games when Sey was out, but otherwise this worked out.

2) We again decided to go without a veteran backup safety. This didn't work out very well for the second year. However, it could be argued that carrying six corners left room for one of them to go over to safety if need be.

3) We decided that we didn't need a fullback, since we had Sey and others. Well, we had others. Sey was hurt because of this decision.

4) We decided to go with a mediocre 2nd string QB and a totally inexperienced #3. We won this bet yet again.

RISKS WE DIDN'T TAKE

1) We carried plenty of experience at LB, although we were late in moving Vrabel to ILB.
2) We drafted two OL's for the future and kept Hochstein. We signed Light long-term. I'd say that this worked out rather well.
3) We kept six wideouts and three tight ends, in case of injury. This also worked out.
4) We kept six starting quality corners. This was as good as anyone could do. Being able to filed seven qualified db's, after have placed 6 on IR, is impressive.

=================================

So, it remains to be seen whether we'll play quarterback roulette yet again, and whether we'll bring in veteran backups at DL and safety (as we used to). And we will see how many RB/FB we keep.

 

[Miguel]

No, I am not equating 25 million to 14 million. What I am equating is that with the 12 million in UNUSED cap space that Philly had, the 25 million isn't what it seems.

Also, Westbrook will have missed as many games as Seymour did. Bruschi as many as McNabb. Harrison more than any of the players you mentioned. Dillon as many games as Westbrook. And all of them are Pro-Bowl Caliber players. Light is as good as any tackle on the Eagles. Just because a player was IRed, you can't look at it strictly in that terms. You should also be looking at it in terms of games missed.

IMO, comparing the impact of a Pro Bowl QB to a Pro Bowl LB is misleading. A fairer comparison is to compare McNabb to Brady. I happen to think that Brady is a leading MVP contender. I can't also think that if he had missed games that the Patriots would have a 10-5 record now. I also think that is important to look at the importance of the positions. Owens, McNabb, McDougle, Fraley, Tra Thomas, and Lito Shepard were all among the Eagles' best players. I just happen to think that if the Patriots had lost Brady, Seymour, Jarvis Green, Kevin Faulk, Light, Harrison, Koppen, and Dillon for the season they would not be 10-5 right now even though the Patriots managed the cap well.

What I am contending, Miquel, is that the Eagles had a lot more problems that the players going onto the IR.

Let's accept your contention. Those problems had nothing to do with cap management.

And that there were plenty of teams who lost key players for a lengthy time.

Like the Colts??
Like the Bears???

 

[pats-blue]

Miguel -
Peerless Price got a million. Anthony Thomas signed for more than the minimum with the Saints.

Also, Miguel, as MG pointed out to you, the Eagles could have used the money to prevent contract situations (Westbrook, Owens) and to provide themselves better back-ups than what they had on their team.

BTW, Miguel, an in season contract extension to Westbrook would have been more likely to increase the amount of free cap space since Westbrook was on a 1 year deal. At least, going by many of the examples you have posted regarding players like Seymour.

Well they were NEVER going to give TO more money 1 year after he signed a SEVEN year contract...thats bad business. If he had another good year or another receiver got a bigger contract he would have wanted more money.

They had everyone under contract. Many pro bowlers and a team that had gone to the Super Bowl the year before and the NFC championship for many years. Yes they had cap room and yes they had very key injuries. If they had known that they were going to have the injuries they ended up having I'm sure they could have spent some of the money on other players, but that is 20/20. They are one of the winningest teams in the last 5 years so there was no reason to think thier formula isn't a sound one.

I really don't get why just because the Eagles don't spend to the cap instead of the fact they had very KEY injuries that the reason why they are out of the playoffs is because Lauire left money on the table. If they had invested in expensive backups it isn't even a remote guarantee that thier record would be any better with the key starters they have out.

My example would be the Jets. They are to the CAP and beyond but have had similar injuries.....what is thier record? Many people had them picked for a possible SB run, yet now they are in the Reggie Bush sweepstakes.

Thats the perfect example.

Jets injuries = Eagles injuries
Jets performance = Eagles performance
Jets CAP spending > Eagles CAP spending = doesn't make a difference.

 

[Miguel]

You can't replace a McNabb, Owens, Westbrook, Hank Fraley, Tra Thomas. and Lito Shepard during the season. That's 4 Pro Bowlers and over $25 million in cap room NOT playing for the Eagles.

No team in the NFL can afford to have 4 Pro Bowlers and over $25 million in cap room not playing for them. Imagine the Patriots without Harrison, Light, Seymour and Brady.

FWIW - Corrections: From John Clayton's blog the actual number is actually $29 million. He believes that number is a record. According to Clayton's ESPN Insider blog the Eagles have lost 8 starters this season. I used the number 7.

 

[Miguel]

Disproving the notion that the Eagles don't spend to the cap

I finally figured out to prove my point.
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004

Last year the Eagles spent over $100 million. Their adjusted cap number was over $84 million so they spent MORE than the cap last year. It was to be expected that this year they will spend UNDER their adjusted cap number. Just like it was expected that the Patriots would spend more than their adjusted cap number this year after spending less than their adjusted cap number in 2004. Just like years of having a large payroll the Redksins' payroll spending is one of the lowest in the league this year. I am dumbfounded that it took me so long to think of the USAToday site.