My Blueprint for the Defense

[Snake Eyes]

I think you are looking at one side of things with Wilfork and that is the $7.5m cap savings, on the flipside there is still a $3.6m cap hit even if we cut him, so when you sign a Joseph for $3m you are paying $6.6m for a mediocre defensive tackle.

No, you're taking that hit for Wilfork whether you sign Joseph or not. That said, what is a better alternative?

 

[mayoclinic]

I think you are looking at one side of things with Wilfork and that is the $7.5m cap savings, on the flipside there is still a $3.6m cap hit even if we cut him, so when you sign a Joseph for $3m you are paying $6.6m for a mediocre defensive tackle.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. We're on the hook for Wilfork's signing bonus no matter what we do, so why should that preclude us from signing another DT to move forward if it's unlikely that Wilfork can recover to anything like his former form. Plus, calling Joseph a "mediocre defensive tackle" is just ignorance. He's darn good.

Linval Joseph is just as good as Wilfork is these days, who was mediocre at the beginning of the year and uninspiring for most of 2012. Not sure what you're talking about.

I've never understood the fascination with Vince. He's a good dude sure. And he's been one of hte best run stopping DT in the league in the past, but that's only half the game (at best if you look at ratios these days). And outside of two or three games, he's been non existent in the other half of the game since 2008. And the results reflect that mediocrity. What has he done to deserve some kind of financial carte blanche? Every defense he's led has been mediocre at best and a dumpster fire at worst.

I think that's a little harsh. Wilfork 2004-2012 is a HOF player in my book, and he earned his contract. But I think it's unlikely that we'll ever see that player again, and for me, Joseph offers the surest and best alternative. He's a very solid run stuffer who can push the pocket and even penetrate a bit. He's flown under the radar, but he's very good IMHO, and he's only 25. Given the inexperience of Chris Jones, Sealver Siliga and Armond Armstead, Joseph would be a solid but young veteran presence to build around.

 

[Brady6]

Linval Joseph is just as good as Wilfork is these days, who was mediocre at the beginning of the year and uninspiring for most of 2012. Not sure what you're talking about.

I've never understood the fascination with Vince. He's a good dude sure. And he's been one of hte best run stopping DT in the league in the past, but that's only half the game (at best if you look at ratios these days). And outside of two or three games, he's been non existent in the other half of the game since 2008. And the results reflect that mediocrity. What has he done to deserve some kind of financial carte blanche? Every defense he's led has been mediocre at best and a dumpster fire at worst.

In 2012 Wilfork produced – 48 tackles, 3.0 sacks, 2 forced fumbles, 4 fumble recoveries, 6 pass defends, and 5 stuffs; the Patriots were 9th against the run.

My fascination with Wilfork is that he is the best NT of his era.

• 2013 – 30th
• 2012 – 9th
• 2011 – 17th
• 2010 – 11th
• 2009 – 13th

 

[Brady6]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. We're on the hook for Wilfork's signing bonus no matter what we do, so why should that preclude us from signing another DT to move forward if it's unlikely that Wilfork can recover to anything like his former form. Plus, calling Joseph a "mediocre defensive tackle" is just ignorance. He's darn good.

Joseph is a good player but he is not the type of player that is worth big money, he is not a playmaker. Wilfork was a playmaker; in his last 2 seasons (2011 and 2012), he had 6.5 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, 6 fumble recoveries, 11 pass knockdowns, and 10 run stuffs. In Joseph’s career, he has 9 sacks, 2 forced fumbles, 3 fumble recoveries, 4 pass knockdowns and 11 run stuffs.

If we could have Joseph straight up for $3 million, sure I would love to have him but considering I am committed to Wilfork for $3.6 I would prefer to work out a restructure and not be invested in that position for a total of $6.6 million and only have Joseph to show for it.

 

[Kontradiction]

If the team is one gapping more and can't trade up to get Jernigan, what about Easley? If he heals properly, he was well on his way to being a first round talent and was borderline dominant in the SEC when he was healthy.

 

[Brady6]

No, you're taking that hit for Wilfork whether you sign Joseph or not. That said, what is a better alternative?

You are not taking the hit if you restructure Wilfork. What many do not understand is that Wilfork is not receiving $11.6m from the Patriots in 2014; he is only set to receive $8m, which consists of a $7.5m salary, $300k weight clause, and a $200k workout bonus. Essentially Wilfork only stands to make $7.5m guaranteed by not restructuring.

The Patriots can take that $7.5m wrap it into a 3 year contract (including 2014) for $12m with the first 2 years guaranteed at $4m per and throw some incentives in there that make it so Wilfork can earn even more money. Wilfork just turned 32 in November, his career being over is exaggerated in my opinion; Warren Sapp had one of his best seasons at 34 years old.

 

[mayoclinic]

You are not taking the hit if you restructure Wilfork. What many do not understand is that Wilfork is not receiving $11.6m from the Patriots in 2014; he is only set to receive $8m, which consists of a $7.5m salary, $300k weight clause, and a $200k workout bonus. Essentially Wilfork only stands to make $7.5m guaranteed by not restructuring.

The Patriots can take that $7.5m wrap it into a 3 year contract (including 2014) for $12m with the first 2 years guaranteed at $4m per and throw some incentives in there that make it so Wilfork can earn even more money. Wilfork just turned 32 in November, his career being over is exaggerated in my opinion; Warren Sapp had one of his best seasons at 34 years old.

All that would have been reasonable if Wilfork were not coming off of a career - threatening injury. To give a 2 year extension without clear signs that Wilfork can come back to something near his previous form would be suicidal, IMHO.

 

[kennyb]

Joseph is a good player but he is not the type of player that is worth big money, he is not a playmaker. Wilfork was a playmaker; in his last 2 seasons (2011 and 2012), he had 6.5 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, 6 fumble recoveries, 11 pass knockdowns, and 10 run stuffs. In Joseph’s career, he has 9 sacks, 2 forced fumbles, 3 fumble recoveries, 4 pass knockdowns and 11 run stuffs.

If we could have Joseph straight up for $3 million, sure I would love to have him but considering I am committed to Wilfork for $3.6 I would prefer to work out a restructure and not be invested in that position for a total of $6.6 million and only have Joseph to show for it.

You're giving a perfect illustration of the sunk cost fallacy. Look it up.

Wilfork's cap hit of 3.6 exists whether he's extended or not. So it is irrelevant when evaluating any player. DL or other.

Wilfork may never play another down effectively. So to alleviate that risk, you guarantee his 7.5m salary. But you spread the hit over a few years (except for the 3.6m from the previous)! Nice now if he can't play you have a cap hit of 3.6m plus 2.5m the first year and 5.0m the next. If that's not brain damage I don't know what is.

We've already got a 3.6m cap hit with Wilfork so best go all in with a crippled player rather than sign a good player for reasonable money! You should teach bizarro economics.

The options are a crippled Wilfork for 7.5m ( no matter how you space the cap hits.) Or a good player for half to three quarters of that. Yeah take the crippled player for twice the money. And space out the cap hits so we get hit next year too. Smart.

 

[kennyb]

You are not taking the hit if you restructure Wilfork. What many do not understand is that Wilfork is not receiving $11.6m from the Patriots in 2014; he is only set to receive $8m, which consists of a $7.5m salary, $300k weight clause, and a $200k workout bonus. Essentially Wilfork only stands to make $7.5m guaranteed by not restructuring.

The Patriots can take that $7.5m wrap it into a 3 year contract (including 2014) for $12m with the first 2 years guaranteed at $4m per and throw some incentives in there that make it so Wilfork can earn even more money. Wilfork just turned 32 in November, his career being over is exaggerated in my opinion; Warren Sapp had one of his best seasons at 34 years old.

Was Sapp coming back from an achilles?

 

[Deus Irae]

While I've got my issues with BB and the defense, I think way too much is being made of this Seahawks victory. Offenses have still been getting teams to the Super Bowl of late, every bit as much as defenses.


That being said, if I can get TJ Ward to pair with McCourty, and then find the money for some combination of

Wilfork
Kelly
Jones
Tyson Jackson
Starks
Joseph

without hamstringing the offense

(Cotchery, Alexander, Edelman (?) )


I'd be liking the team's chances. I'd love to keep Spikes for his hitting, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. I'd also look at Cody as a potential rotational guy if the guys above aren't available.

 

[Sciz]

If we could have Joseph straight up for $3 million, sure I would love to have him but considering I am committed to Wilfork for $3.6 I would prefer to work out a restructure and not be invested in that position for a total of $6.6 million and only have Joseph to show for it.

Sunk costs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In traditional microeconomic theory, only prospective (future) costs are relevant to an investment decision. Traditional economics proposes that economic actors should not let sunk costs influence their decisions. Doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits.

Evidence from behavioral economics suggests this theory fails to predict real-world behavior. Sunk costs do, in fact, influence actors' decisions because humans are prone to loss aversion and framing effects. In light of such cognitive quirks, it is unsurprising that people frequently fail to behave in ways that economists deem "rational".

Given that Belichick majored in economics, it's safe to assume he understands this idea enough to be one of those rational people.

 

[Brady6]

All that would have been reasonable if Wilfork were not coming off of a career - threatening injury. To give a 2 year extension without clear signs that Wilfork can come back to something near his previous form would be suicidal, IMHO.

I do not really understand how it is suicidal, the cap hit is $3.6m this year even if we cut him, so you guarantee him that, and you guarantee the 2015 with an injury clause attached to it.

 

[Brady6]

Sunk costs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Given that Belichick majored in economics, it's safe to assume he understands this idea enough to be one of those rational people.

I majored in economics with a minor in geospatial science at USAFA so I understand the meaning of sunk cost. This is not a sunk cost unless Wilfork is unable to play or unwilling to renegotiate. Right now there is an option which is it restructure Wilfork in a way that would have him playing at or around the $3.6m cap hit that is already in place, there is a way to do so without negatively impacting the 2015 cap by attaching an injury clause.

Investopedia explains 'Sunk Cost'

When making business or investment decisions, individuals and organizations typically look at the future costs that they may incur, by following a certain strategy. A company that has spent $5 million building a factory that is not yet complete, has to consider the $5 million sunk, since it cannot get the money back. It must decide whether continuing construction to complete the project will help the company regain the sunk cost, or whether it should walk away from the incomplete project.

 

[kennyb]

I do not really understand how it is suicidal, the cap hit is $3.6m this year even if we cut him, so you guarantee him that, and you guarantee the 2015 with an injury clause attached to it.

Well then you have a basic misunderstanding. If you guarantee him 3.6m this year cause that's what his cap hit is means if cut his cap hit would be 7.2m. His total cap hit would be 7.2 m. You are confused.
The origInale 3.6m has already been spent. That's why it's a sunk cost.

You think they can say to Wilfork play for a 3.6m cap hit in 2015? That would mean his salary is zero.

 

[kennyb]

I majored in economics with a minor in geospatial science at USAFA so I understand the meaning of sunk cost. This is not a sunk cost unless Wilfork is unable to play or unwilling to renegotiate. Right now there is an option which is it restructure Wilfork in a way that would have him playing at or around the $3.6m cap hit that is already in place, there is a way to do so without negatively impacting the 2015 cap by attaching an injury clause.
U
Investopedia explains 'Sunk Cost'

It's the definition of sunk cost. Has nothing to do with whether Wilfork renegotiates.

you must have skipped the first day of class.

3.6m is a sunk cost it's irrelevent. Wilfork for 7.5 in additional money. The fact that he counts for 3.6m already means nothing. You don't net the 3.6m against the 7.5. The 7.5m is new money new cap hits. Total cap hits for Wilfork next year will be 3.6m or 11m. Although the 11m might be spaced out.

This is so basic it's rudiculous.

 

[kennyb]

I majored in economics with a minor in geospatial science at USAFA so I understand the meaning of sunk cost. This is not a sunk cost unless Wilfork is unable to play or unwilling to renegotiate. Right now there is an option which is it restructure Wilfork in a way that would have him playing at or around the $3.6m cap hit that is already in place, there is a way to do so without negatively impacting the 2015 cap by attaching an injury clause.

Investopedia explains 'Sunk Cost'

There is no option to have him play for a 3.6m cap hit next year. The 3.6m from the old contract is in addition to prorated new money. If he plays for a 1 million salary then the cap hit would be 4.6m.

 

[Brady6]

You're giving a perfect illustration of the sunk cost fallacy. Look it up.

Wilfork's cap hit of 3.6 exists whether he's extended or not. So it is irrelevant when evaluating any player. DL or other.

Wilfork may never play another down effectively. So to alleviate that risk, you guarantee his 7.5m salary. But you spread the hit over a few years (except for the 3.6m from the previous)! Nice now if he can't play you have a cap hit of 3.6m plus 2.5m the first year and 5.0m the next. If that's not brain damage I don't know what is.

We've already got a 3.6m cap hit with Wilfork so best go all in with a crippled player rather than sign a good player for reasonable money! You should teach bizarro economics.

The options are a crippled Wilfork for 7.5m ( no matter how you space the cap hits.) Or a good player for half to three quarters of that. Yeah take the crippled player for twice the money. And space out the cap hits so we get hit next year too. Smart.

You do not really seem to understand “sunk cost”. Actually, it is somewhat amusing that you and others in this thread throw that term around as if you are working at Wells Fargo.

This is a sunk cost:

• Purchase a building for $400k based on the belief that if you invest $100k into it you can sell it for $800k.
• The housing market drops even if you invested the additional $100k into it, you would only sell the property for $350k, but you can get $300k for the property by just selling out now and walking away so you do that and accept the $100k loss.

Wilfork is not a sunk cost unless he is unwilling to play at the $3.6m cap # in 2014 on a restructured deal.

You sign Wilfork to a 3-year contract worth $12.5m with $3.5m guaranteed with an accelerator to $7m guaranteed if he plays in 12 games in 2014.
I am looking at this from a salary cap perspective only, if you’re trying to save Kraft a few bucks in his actual bank account then yeah cut him, but from a salary cap perspective if you can get him to resign at $3.6m why the hell not with a clause for next season attached. Wilfork is not guaranteed any money this year, the cap hit has already been paid so basically we’re using cap # that is going to hit us either way on a player who is 32 years old and still could have something left in the tank.

 

[Brady6]

There is no option to have him play for a 3.6m cap hit next year. The 3.6m from the old contract is in addition to prorated new money. If he plays for a 1 million salary then the cap hit would be 4.6m.

Not really you can take the $3.6m divide it out over 2014 and 2015 with at $1.8m with a $1.8m salary guaranteed for 2014, and I guess worst case we take a $1.8m cap hit 2015.

 

[mayoclinic]

I do not really understand how it is suicidal, the cap hit is $3.6m this year even if we cut him, so you guarantee him that, and you guarantee the 2015 with an injury clause attached to it.

It's suicidal because the team would be committing more money to a player who is extremely unlikely to be able to play at a meaningful level in 2014, and who is also unlikely to ever regain any semblance of his all pro form. Furthermore, in doing so they will cloud their long term planning at the DT position and put themselves 1-2+ years behind the 8 ball in moving forward.

I understand that Wilfork is a proud man, and that he doesn't want his career to end on his note. But even he admits that he has no idea if he can physically recover or not:

“I can’t tell you what the body’s going to tell me when I take the field,” Wilfork said in the piece. “Maybe the body is going to say, ‘You know what, Vince, it is enough.’ If it does that, I’m going to have to listen to my body.”

Patriots' Vince Wilfork: 'I cant leave the game like this' - ESPN

No one knows for sure whether Wilfork can come back, but medically the odds are against him regaining his former explosiveness and power.

 

[kennyb]

You do not really seem to understand “sunk cost”. Actually, it is somewhat amusing that you and others in this thread throw that term around as if you are working at Wells Fargo.

This is a sunk cost:

• Purchase a building for $400k based on the belief that if you invest $100k into it you can sell it for $800k.
• The housing market drops even if you invested the additional $100k into it, you would only sell the property for $350k, but you can get $300k for the property by just selling out now and walking away so you do that and accept the $100k loss.

Wilfork is not a sunk cost unless he is unwilling to play at the $3.6m cap # in 2014 on a restructured deal.

You sign Wilfork to a 3-year contract worth $12.5m with $3.5m guaranteed with an accelerator to $7m guaranteed if he plays in 12 games in 2014.
I am looking at this from a salary cap perspective only, if you’re trying to save Kraft a few bucks in his actual bank account then yeah cut him, but from a salary cap perspective if you can get him to resign at $3.6m why the hell not with a clause for next season attached. Wilfork is not guaranteed any money this year, the cap hit has already been paid so basically we’re using cap # that is going to hit us either way on a player who is 32 years old and still could have something left in the tank.

You have a basic misunderstanding of the cap.

Wilfork can't play for 3.6m cap hit next year. We'll he could if his salary was zero

His new cap hit is 3.6m PLUS a portion of his new cash depending on how long the contract is and if it's guarateed.

If he plays for a 3.6m salary then his cap hit is 7.2m not 3.6m.

There are no "plans to extend wilfork and have him play for a 3.6m cap hit" . If you think there are then you're confused.

the old 3.6m cap hit doesn't go away it's expensed whether Wilfork is here or not. You don't understand that simple concept.