How Belichick/Pioli Operate the Patriots Like Smart Businessmen

[Clonamery]

Amazing how he did all that without an Offensive Line, Wide Receivers, Running Backs and Tight Ends.

What happened is that Tom hiked the ball to himself, handed it off to himself and then ran. Some plays, he hiked it to himself threw it way up in the air and caught it down field.......

Honestly, I feel like I'm arguing with a pre-schooler.

It must be the training pants.

 

[mikey]

I think a business model that underpays its employees may work, but probably only in the short run.

Belichick/Pioli model of underpaying the players work as long as we are winning.

Players are just like you and I.

They are willing to get a lower pay if there are other compensating factors, like getting a chance to win the SB.

For example, Dillon took a pay cut to come here for the opportunity to win a SB and to restore his reputation.

But when we stop winning, I think this business model will collapse.

I don't see why any good players will take a pay cut to come to a losing team.

.

 

[14thDragon]

I think a business model that underpays its employees may work, but probably only in the short run.

That kinda assumes that most of the players are being underpaid.

Other then the players on thier rookie contracts, who exactly is being underpaid? Sure guys leave for more money when the market prices them out of pay structure. But you can only have so many guys making large amounts.

Brady, Seymour both got big deals, setup specifically so they would see all of it. Green got a very nice deal for a back-up. Corey Dillon got a really nice extension last year. Neal got his. Hocstien got a new payday for his services as a back-up.

Sure, a lot of our rookies and draft picks get underpaid in thier first contract, and some of them *cough*Hill*cough* are overpaid. But that is just inhenrent in the system and is the case for most of the leauge.

 

[shmessy]

I think a business model that underpays its employees may work, but probably only in the short run.

Belichick/Pioli model of underpaying the players work as long as we are winning.

Players are just like you and I.

They are willing to get a lower pay if there are other compensating factors, like getting a chance to win the SB.

For example, Dillon took a pay cut to come here for the opportunity to win a SB and to restore his reputation.

But when we stop winning, I think this business model will collapse.

I don't see why any good players will take a pay cut to come to a losing team.

.

You keep lobbing that falsehood that the Pats players are underpaid. Cut the crap. The top 10% may be underpaid, but the other 90% is paid better than on any other team.

14th Dragon is right. The Patriots have the best paid middle class and bench in football. It is for that very reason that they were able to win back-to-back Super Bowls in 2003 and 2004 WHILE LEADING THE LEAGUE IN STARTER INJURIES.

Mikey's "Entertainment Tonight-Stargazing" cap model would have left them hopelessly out early in the playoffs in each of those years and out OF the playoffs last year.

Dan Snyder is derisively called "Mr. March" for a reason here in Maryland.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Filled with whom? Just out of curiosity, who should they have thrown the money at. Givens, Mcginist, Vinatieri? Law, Peterson, Burleson? Who in the free agency market would have been the missing link?

Free Agency did not get going until after all the teams knew what the bump in the cap number was. It was not a case of misestimating the cap, it was the matter of them not placing value on the free agents out there that other teams did. Combine that with a lot of teams trying to get under the old CBA cap, most teams had unexpected room to lock up thier players. There were not a lot of marque players on the market this year.

No, many free agents were signed before the new labor was signed. As to who would have worht signing? Look at this list (make sure you also view page two) of top LB's, 6 or 7 of which would be way better than Beisel. How about Nate Clements, nah, he wouldn't have made us better. Neither would have Keenan McCardell, or Joe Jurevicius, to name a few more.

 

[Clonamery]

No, many free agents were signed before the new labor was signed. As to who would have worht signing? Look at this list (make sure you also view page two) of top LB's, 6 or 7 of which would be way better than Beisel. How about Nate Clements, nah, he wouldn't have made us better. Neither would have Keenan McCardell, or Joe Jurevicius, to name a few more.

THAT is your opinion. Big whoop.

 

[shmessy]

No, many free agents were signed before the new labor was signed. As to who would have worht signing? Look at this list (make sure you also view page two) of top LB's, 6 or 7 of which would be way better than Beisel. How about Nate Clements, nah, he wouldn't have made us better. Neither would have Keenan McCardell, or Joe Jurevicius, to name a few more.

Mary Hart from Entertainment Tonight also says T.O. would have looked "fabulous in Foxboro". Pat O'Brien from Access Hollywood roars that Sean Taylor would have looked "tight" in a Pats uni.

Meanwhile, (back on earth) the HC of the team that has won 3 SB's in the past 5 years says that he is not a "collector of players" - - he is building a team that fits together and works optimally as a unit.

But keep playing Rotisserie Baseball. You're way smarter than BB-Pioli.

 

[14thDragon]

No, many free agents were signed before the new labor was signed.

Free Agency did not start until the new labor agreement was signed, so that quite technically is incorrect. There might have been some negotiations, but no one became a free agent until after the new CBA was done.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

I stand corrected. I was thinking of the decisions not to sign our own pending free agents before the new deal came out and lost track of the facts. My comments in this thread thus are mostly irrelevant. My apologies...

 

[DaBruinz]

The 2003 "best" defense gave up 29 points and almost 400 yards to the Panthers and Delhomme. Without Brady's 360 yards 3 TD's, we do not get the 2nd Lombardi.

That wasn't the 2003 defense that did that. That was the 2003 defense with 2 subs in their secondary. When you lose your two starting safeties in the span of a quarter, your team is going to have issues.

 

[DaBruinz]

Well, I'll give you credit for the effort but you're missing a key point: BB and Pioli did not come close to accurately anticipating the change's in the salary cap after the new labor deal kicked in leaving them with holes they could (should) have been able to fill with their extra cap space. They have left the patriots behind the curve compared with teams that more correctly understood the coming changes and spent accordingly. In other words, the Patriots are less talented this year because of BB and Pioli's blunder. A blunder that is not open to argument - it is a fact, the Pat's front office did not position itself as effectively as other teams and now another year of Tom Brady's career will go by quarterbacking a team weaker than it should be because BB and Pioli didn't operate the Patriots like smart businessmen.

BBB -
Sorry, but could you provide PROOF that they didn't operate the Patriots like smart businessmen? And please make sure you take into consideration that the Patriots, in all likely-hood, are going to make Seymour's 6.66 Million bonus that is due, a roster bonus and not a signing bonus. That would reduce the money they have available from 13.9 million to about 7.54 million. They have also set aside money for Branch. From the reports, I believe that the Pats were planning on making Branch's bonus a roster bonus also. That would eat up another 4-4.5 million, leaving the Pats with roughly 3-3.5 million for players who get IRed, replacement players, practice squad players, and the 52nd and 53rd players on the roster.

Also, could you please provide examples of the players the Patriots could have signed to fill the wholes that they have? Please include the potential contract and salary cap hit.

Sorry, but I think that BB and Pioli did NOT under-estimate the new CBA. I think that they , by many accounts, we some of the more successful with their planning and set aside money for extension to Branch, Graham, Samuel, and others.

 

[DaBruinz]

No, many free agents were signed before the new labor was signed. As to who would have worht signing? Look at this list (make sure you also view page two) of top LB's, 6 or 7 of which would be way better than Beisel. How about Nate Clements, nah, he wouldn't have made us better. Neither would have Keenan McCardell, or Joe Jurevicius, to name a few more.

Nate Clements was franchised by the Bills.
Keenan McCardell was not a free agent this year as he signed an extension during last year.
Joe Jurevicius was signed by the Browns. But it was to a 4 year deal worth nearly 25 million. Which is what Givens got to be a #1 receiver.

I don't believe there were 6 or 7 ILBs available in free agency. Yes, there were quite a few 4-3 OLBs available, but how many of them were better than Vrabel or Colvin? However, how many of the available OLBs would have fit into the Pats 3-4 system?

 

[DaBruinz]

Free Agency did not start until the new labor agreement was signed, so that quite technically is incorrect. There might have been some negotiations, but no one became a free agent until after the new CBA was done.

This is not true. Players who were CUT from their teams, immediately became free agents and could negotiate with other teams at any time. Only players whose contracts had run their course had to wait until the official start of free agency. Case in point was the St. Louis signing La'Roi Glover prior to the start of free agency. Many people (including myself) thought it was tampering until we learned that players who were cut could be signed at any point in time.

 

[maverick4]

BBB -
Sorry, but could you provide PROOF that they didn't operate the Patriots like smart businessmen? And please make sure you take into consideration that the Patriots, in all likely-hood, are going to make Seymour's 6.66 Million bonus that is due, a roster bonus and not a signing bonus. That would reduce the money they have available from 13.9 million to about 7.54 million. They have also set aside money for Branch. From the reports, I believe that the Pats were planning on making Branch's bonus a roster bonus also. That would eat up another 4-4.5 million, leaving the Pats with roughly 3-3.5 million for players who get IRed, replacement players, practice squad players, and the 52nd and 53rd players on the roster.

Once the Pats sign a grandpa ILB like Seau or Sharper, and with Seymour's roster bonus and re-signing Branch, the cap money will be mostly spent.

.

 

[Danny Boy®]

Once the Pats sign a grandpa ILB like Seau or Sharper, and with Seymour's roster bonus and re-signing Branch, the cap money will be mostly spent.

.

Isnt there still about 15 mill?

 

[shmessy]

Once the Pats sign a grandpa ILB like Seau or Sharper, and with Seymour's roster bonus and re-signing Branch, the cap money will be mostly spent.

.

Sharper is 31. Younger than Bruschi.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Looks like we're homing in on Seau...certainly not a done deal yet but it looks like fast-track.

So, we lose McGinest, a 35-year-old guy, probably running out of gas. A leader. Winning team for three super bowls. We pick up a 37-year-old guy. A leader. Probably running out of gas. Perenniel pro-bowler.

McGinest was going to cost 7 mil, as I remember. What do you think Seau costs us?

I know they're not the same guy. I know they don't even do exactly the same thing. But I know the writing was on the wall from Willie's contract: The Pats could hold the line or attempt to make it with a mix of young guys and whatever veteran depth they could add.

They're looking at other guys as well. The thing is, they weren't refusing to overpay Willie and Adam just to make a point. As has been pointed out here, the cap money will be spent. They are attempting to keep cost in line with value, as the Pats estimate it. To do so they have to look at the player market as responding to market forces... they may at times even have to put off the big-money choices for a whole year, choosing to spend when the spending will yield more bang for the buck.

Once when I was rhapsodizing about how great the Pats' model was, and comparing to Indy without looking up the facts, one of our capologists brought me up short by showing me the top 10 on the Pats versus on the Colts as percentage of total cap hit... the numbers varied by about 5%. There's a convergence, as some contracts mature, and players realize they can sell their Super Bowl Halo elsewhere. In some cases, the Pats have had to seriously cough up the cash (Seymour, Brady.) That means in other cases they have had to make the hard choices. The departures were pretty tough this year. Colvin's hit is climbing too, by the way -- don't sleep on that one.

The 15 mil (then 13 mil, next week....?) figure is transitory. The Pats guessed, and it looked like they were right, that as camp went on there'd be some pickins left. We, on the other hand (myself included) were looking for 6/1 cuts... and as a vast wasteland stretched between those two dates, we all started wondering where this money goes.

Now "the sky is falling" because we didn't spend a month or two ago? I think we're going to be looking good... I've also said and still believe, that the Pats may say in a year or two, "in retrospect we should have accounted for the cap inflation from the new CBA more." Maybe we woulda gotten Javon Walker or this guy or that guy... or maybe not. We don't know those details.

I do know that I see a lot of action right now in terms of evaluating linebacker help, and that if the Pats believe another veteran presence at LB is an improvement on our young guys, they will move on that front.

BB/SP have a long, long way to go before some puke on a bulletin board can dub them "dumb" businessmen.

Need my kool-aid night cap now,

PFnV

 

[DaBruinz]

Isnt there still about 15 mill?

DannyBoy -
No, there is only about 13.9 Million right now. If they sign Seau, pay Seymour his entire bonus as a roster bonus (which means they take the entire hit right now) and come to a conclusion with Branch (or sign someone like Samuel or Graham to an extension), then no, they won't have 15 million. They will be lucky to have 3-4 million. And that money can easily disappear if they have guys go onto the IR and when the rosters are reduced and the 52 and 53rd men hit the roster and the Pats have to pay the practice squad.

 

[maverick4]

Pasquarelli's article is way off.

The Pats are doing exactly what they should be doing.
They are being good leaders, admitting reality and their flaws, and addresssing them without overpaying. Signing undervalued veterans is a no-lose situation.

Ted Johnson's retirement caught them off guard, and they didn't like the linebacker market or choices available to them since then.